ADVAXIS INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Stock Options-----------------------------------------------------------Timothy Larkin, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Advaxis, Inc., et al., Case No. 11338-CB (Del. Ch.,July 27, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the stockholders ofAdvaxis, Inc., to enjoin the improper granting of "spring-loaded"stock options to the Defendants, as well as the excessive andunfair compensation received by the non-employee Board members.

ANTHEM INC: Faces Data Breach Class Suit----------------------------------------Dan Harkins, writing for Louisiana Record, reported that a coupleis filing a class action lawsuit against a major insurance agency,alleging failure to protect against a recent hacking breach ofsecurity for 80 million customers.

Stephen and Beryl Fisse, for their minor daughter, filed a lawsuitJune 17 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofLouisiana against Anthem Inc. and the Anthem Cos. Inc.

The complaint states this class action is for all previous andpresent Anthem customers who had personal data stolen hackers,allegedly due "to Anthem's failure to adhere to reasonable,industry-standard practices."

On Feb. 4, 2015, the suit says, Anthem announced its informationbreach, specifically the personal data of about 80 million formerand current insurance plan customers, including their SocialSecurity numbers, street addresses, birthdays, email addresses,employment information and income, the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs seek to classify this case as a class action andappoint the plaintiffs as representatives of the class and itscounsel as class counsel, as well as to enter a judgment againstthe defendants for cited negligent misrepresentations, breaches ofimplied and express contracts and unjust enrichment.

APPLE: "Shrinkage" Class Suit Trial to Begin January----------------------------------------------------David Kravets, writing for ARS, reported that a federal judge hasruled that Apple must defend a class-action trial, to begin inJanuary, representing thousands of Apple store workers. Theemployees claim they had to spend as much as 20 minutes off theclock having their bags searched to combat employee theft -- knownas "shrinkage" -- every time they left the premises.

According to US District Judge William Alsup's ruling:

"In stores where searches were performed by the manager onduty, some employees say they had to scour the store to find amanager and wait until that manager finished with other duties,such as assisting a customer. Where searches were performed by asecurity guard, some employees had to wait until a security guardbecame available. Some employees sometimes had to wait in line.Employee estimates of the duration of the whole process, includingboth searches and wait times, range from five minutes to up totwenty minutes per search, with extremes occurring during busyperiods such as product launches or holiday seasons. By contrast,managers estimate wait times at only a few seconds."

Alsup's decision applies to about 12,400 workers in California,which has more employee-friendly work regulations than those ofthe federal government or other states. Alsup allowed thelitigation to continue despite the Supreme Court ruling in 2014that warehouse workers for Amazon.com in Nevada could be forced tospend as much as 25 minutes off the clock to undergo securityscreenings at the end of their shift.

Apple has maintained that the lawsuit should not be granted class-action status because not all stores conducted the searches or, inthe alternative, the searches only took seconds and did notwarrant compensation.

* Ask the employee to open every bag, brief case, back pack,purse, etc.

* Ask the employee to remove any type of item that Apple maysell. Be sure to verify the serial number of the employee'spersonal technology against the personal technology log.

* Visually inspect the inside of the bag and view its contents.Be sure to ask the employee to unzip zippers and compartments soyou can inspect the entire contents of the bag. If there are bagswithin a bag, such as a cosmetics case, be sure to ask theemployee to open these bags as well.

* At no time should you remove any items inside the bag ortouch the employee's personal belongings. If something looksquestionable, ask the employee to move or remove items from thebag so that the bag check can be completed.

* In the event that a questionable item is found, ask theemployee to remove the item from the bag. Apple will reserve theright to hold onto the questioned item until it can be verified asemployee owned. (This will make the employee more aware to log inall items at start of shift.)

* If the item cannot be verified by [the manager on duty],contact Loss Prevention.

The policy requires workers to find a manager or security guard tocheck their bags before leaving the store. Failure to comply,according to Alsup's ruling, "may lead to disciplinary action, upto and including termination."

Trial is set for January 25 in San Francisco federal court.

APPLE: Sued Over Refurbished AppleCare+ Hardware Replacements-------------------------------------------------------------Rogers Fingas, writing for AppleInsider, reported that a case wasentered July 18 via the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California, on behalf of Joanne McRight, a woman whosefather bought her an iPhone 5 with AppleCare+ from an Apple Storein Friendswood, Texas in December 2012. Her screen later broke,and in September 2013 McRight paid AppleCare+'s then-$49accidental damage fee to secure a replacement.

The new device's screen also broke, leading to her paying another$49 in May 2014. Lawyers for McRight said that neither of thedevices were new or "equivalent to new in both performance andreliability," as promised in the official terms for AppleCare+.Specifically, McRight argues that refurbished devices -- somethingApple frequently offers up in place of broken units -- do notqualify.

McRight's father later bought her an iPhone 6 with AppleCare+ inSeptember 2014, but that device's screen broke as well, leadingher to seek replacement in July, this time at the increasedaccidental damage fee of $79. Once again Apple allegedly suppliedher with a device that was not equivalent to new.

The proposed class covers anyone who bought an AppleCare orAppleCare+ plan between July 11, 2011 and the present, regardlessof whether the device is an iPhone.

McNight's attorneys are asking for an injunction forcing Apple toprovide new devices to people wanting replacements, as well ascompensation in the form of legal fees and damages totaling atleast $5 million, a minimum set by the Class Action Fairness Act.

ASHLEY MADISON: Could Face Data Breach Class Suit-------------------------------------------------Laura Wright, writing for CBC News, reported that several high-profile hacks, including the recent attack against Ashley Madison,a website for people looking to have an affair, have raisedquestions about whether online activity is ever truly private.

Ashley Madison is built around the notion of safeguarding itsusers' information -- reflected in its signature image of awoman's pursed lips making the 'shh' sign, seemingly meant toreassure would-be adulterers that their secrets are safe.But now, hackers say 37 million accounts have been compromised.

The company's owner, Toronto-based Avid Life Media, said it has"always had the confidentiality of our customers' informationforemost in our minds" but was not able to assure its users thattheir information is safe.

"What people should think about is just acceptable risk. Any timeyou're using a computer or giving away information of any kind,there is the risk that can be misused," says Andrew Hilts,executive director at Open Effect, a Canadian non-profit that doesresearch on privacy and security.

"It comes down to what level of risk you're comfortable with,"says Hilts.

"When payment comes into play, often credit cards are used andthat's pretty inexorably tied to an identity," he adds.

Brian Bourne, co-founder of SecTor, an IT security conference,says a motivated hacker can break into any site. He estimates,based on what the hackers posted online, the Ashley Madison attacktook several months or even years.

"To do what they did generally requires more skill and effort andpatience," says Bourne. "So it's not a drive-by and it's not asmash and grab."

Bourne adds that hackers having long-term access to networks is"embarrassingly common."The Ashley Madison hackers take issue with its reported $19 chargeto users for deleting their information. The hackers say thecompany doesn't actually delete it, a claim the company disputes.

But a security expert says it's difficult for any company to fullydelete user information.

Robert Beggs, a manager for technical security atPricewaterhousecoopers, says information on even a simplewebsite's database can easily end up in multiple places, such astest and backup databases, or with marketers.

Compounding the issue is that many companies don't know where theinformation on their database goes, or even sometimes where it'sstored.

"So when you say, 'Ashley Madison, remove this data,' it willexist in multiple forms," says Beggs.

Beggs says it's reasonable to expect that any profile informationon a site like Ashley Madison would be removed, but a user'scredit card information legally has to be kept on file for up toseven years, which can be linked to a person's name.

Privacy lawyer David Fraser says companies are not required toguarantee the safety of information they collect. But they do haveto implement commensurate safeguards.

"Canadian privacy laws are more principles-based than anythingelse -- how in fact they apply is sometimes a matter of opinion,"he says.

Fraser expects a big fallout for Ashley Madison, though thepossibility of individual lawsuits isn't likely to pay off for theuser, he says.

"Courts haven't taken privacy breaches to be associated with ahigh level of damages. So unless you can point to financial loss,the damages a court would award for hurt feelings or anxiety arenot particularly high and almost would never make it worth yourwhile in light of legal fees," says Fraser.

He says a massive class-action lawsuit is more likely if hackerspublicize users' information, because the damages would be higherif more people are affected.

"A large number of people probably find the Ashley Madison sitepersonally repugnant and problematic, but I don't think the lawwould make that distinction," says Fraser. "Regardless of themorality, privacy is about individuals being able to make choicesabout how their information is collected, used or disclosed."

Fraser says it would be a different story if the site encouragedillegal activity, but affairs are well within the confines ofCanadian law.

He adds there is a precedent in Canadian law for protecting class-action participants' identities; so users of the site wouldn'tnecessarily "out" themselves if they took part.

Hilts, at Open Effect, says if people want to keep their onlinebehaviour away from prying eyes, there are certain steps they cantake.

He suggests creating a throwaway email, using pseudonyms, and toavoid paying online with a credit card. He also suggests usingbrowsers in "incognito" mode or deleting internet searchhistories.

But at the end of the day, online activity can always be draggedinto the bright light of day.

"With every decision you make, decide that if the site losescontrol of this information, would anyone have information thatI'd be upset to have public?" says Hilts.

BLUE CROSS: Michigan Chiropractors Get Deal in Class Suit---------------------------------------------------------Chiropractic Economics reported that the Michigan Association ofChiropractors (MAC) is proud to announce that after months ofintense negotiations, a settlement has been reached in lawsuitsagainst Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network,two of Michigan's largest health insurers. The signed settlementagreements are believed to be the most successful Blue Crosssettlements ever reached by a chiropractic state association.

When these settlements are implemented on August 1, 2015,chiropractors will be treated fairly under Michigan's chiropracticscope of practice and will be able to be reimbursed for many newservices needed by their patients.

"These agreements are truly historic for the chiropracticprofession in our state," said Damian Palmer, DC, president, MAC."The settlements are the result of many years of unbelievably hardwork and dedication on the part of MAC leadership and our members.This is a major win in the fight to end discrimination againstchiropractors and our patients."

The settlement agreements, which become effective August 1, 2015,contain provisions relating to the following:

Expansion of CPT Code Coverage:

* If medically necessary, CMT code 98943 (Extra-spinal) andradiological codes that are part of a Blue Cross policy will nowbe covered.

* All medically necessary physical medicine procedures that arepart of a Blue Cross policy, and in the chiropractic scope, willnow be covered.

* Coverage for evaluation and management services will now bethe same for chiropractors as for all other physician groups

MAC Representation: The settlement also allows MAC directrepresentation on Blue Cross Committees dealing with audits,profiling, and utilization management of chiropractors.

Marketing Materials: MAC will also have input on relevantmarketing materials and will continue to partner with Blue Crosson efforts to include more chiropractors in the BCBSM PhysicianGroup Incentive Program (PGIP)

Dispute Resolution Process: Finally, a dispute resolution meetingprocess will be utilized to help ensure future concerns are dealtwith quickly and without the need for litigation.

Attorney fees were also included in the settlement.

"This settlement will have a major impact on every Michiganchiropractic office that participates with the Blues," said ThomasKlapp, DC, Chair, MAC Legal Affairs Committee. "Chiropractors cannow not only practice as we are educated and trained, leading toenhanced patient care, but also be paid for the services weperform. It's a significant win."

BURNSVILLE, MN: Faces Class Suit over Carport Inspections---------------------------------------------------------Joe Augustine, writing for ABC News, reported that the metalframes and tin roofs of carports were bolted in years ago inBurnsville.

"It was up there when I bought the place," Donna Stiele said aboutthe carport that sits in front of her double-wide mobile home.

Stiele's home in the Rambush Estates mobile home park inBurnsville is on the market and she believes being one of 22 homesin the park with a carport makes it more valuable.

"It certainly is a selling point," Stiele saAt least, it was aselling point.

The city of Burnsville sent out 22 notices earlier this summernotifying carport owners they must take down their drivewaystructures.

"All of them were installed without a permit," ChristopherForslund, the city's code enforcement coordinator, said.

Forslund says the code violations were discovered during citywideinspections, which were ramped up three years ago at theinstruction of the city council.

"That's the frightening part," he sa"We don't know how they'reinstalled."

Homeowners can apply for a variance to be able to keep theircarports if they meet the building codes.

An attorney representing several homeowners in the park filed aclass action lawsuit against the city claiming, among otherthings, the city does not have the authority to conductinspections of carports.

The lawsuit cites a state statute that says the MinnesotaDepartment of Labor and Industry "shall have the exclusive rightto conduct inspections" of manufactured premises and homes.

It's not clear if that applies to accessory items like carportswhich are installed separately from the manufactured home.

A spokesperson for The Department of Labor and Industry did notcomment specifically on this issue but did say it is typical forcities to enforce state building codes within city limits.

Anlya Martinez will not wait to find out who is in charge of theinspections.

"I don't want no problems; I'm going to remove it," Martinez saHercarport was installed before she bought her mobile home two yearsago. "I already sold it," she added.

Can-Roxy Trading Inc. is recalling Coffee Soft Candy, Maccha SoftCandy and Ribon brand Soft Hokkaido Milk Candy from themarketplace because they contain soy, milk and wheat which are notdeclared on the label. People with an allergy to soy, milk orwheat or with a sensitivity to gluten should not consume therecalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalledproducts should be thrown out or returned to the store where theywere purchased.

If you have an allergy to soy, milk or wheat or a sensitivity togluten do not consume the recalled products as they may cause aserious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with theconsumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safetyinvestigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. Ifother high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify thepublic through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productfrom the marketplace.

Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC ---------- ----------- ---- product --- ---------- Japanese Coffee Soft 90 g All codes where 4 901243- Characters Candy soy, milk and 120684 Only wheat are not properly declared on the label Japanese Maccha Soft 90 g All codes where 4 901243- Characters Candy soy, milk and 120233 Only wheat are not properly declared on the label Ribon Soft Hokkaido 110 g All codes where 4 903316- Milk Candy milk is not 430812 properly declared on the label

One farmer representing each of the western provinces are theplaintiffs in the case, which initially began in 2010, andincludes Peace Country farmer Nathan Macklin of DeBolt.

"(The case) has changed somewhat due to the legal decisions thathave come down," Macklin explained. "The original lawsuit wasasking for a much larger amount in damages. It was claiming thatwe as farmers had a proprietary interest in the assets of the(CWB) and we own it."

The CWB is a marketing board for wheat and barley growers inwestern Canada which allowed farmers to remain in control of theirproduct until it hit end users overseas, Macklin explained. Priorto the government's changes, there were three major players; therailroads, the grain companies and the board which was controlledby the farmers.

"Now, there's two major players and 70,000 farmers who have nocontrol or bargaining capacity once they dump their grain in thepit at the grain company," he sa

The original class action sought to return the board to a single-desk mandate as well as $17 billion in compensation for when thefederal government took over the board.

"We were a little disappointed that the lower courts (in 2012)decided that the government was within its rights to basicallyconfiscate those assets and... that the CWB was their (government)property," he sa

"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined to hear our appeal ofthe lower court ruling on that issue. However, the lower court didallow a portion of our lawsuit, a smaller portion of our lawsuit,to proceed."

Macklin said it appears that there was a significant mismanagementof the board's pooled funds into the contingency fund and therestructuring costs during it's as a single-desk mandatedoperation. According to Macklin, there's up to $720 million thatshould have been returned to farmers in the pool, 'deprivingfarmers of a lot of value that they are otherwise entitled to.'

"The financial statements of the CWB have not been released sincethe government took over the operation," said Macklin.

"We need to get a look at those books to actually figure out howmuch of that money was actually misallocated and to have sometransparency and some accountability on farmer's behalves over theactions that the government has taken through various means, suchas citing commercial confidentiality of a private grain companyand things like that."

In terms of the amended class action, Macklin said they are in theprocess of certifying it, which he added will take a bit of time.Once the action is certified it can then move on to trial.

"We'll see if there's a different government in the meantime," hesa"What changes the election might bring to the strategy, I am notsure but certainly, we're committed to ensuring that farmersreceive the full value of the money that they are entitled to...and we'll do the best to our ability with the resources we have toensure that that happens."

It's a bit disappointing that the case seems to have returned tosquare one and amended from the original case, Macklin admitted,but they knew it was an uphill battle.

"We feel we're fighting the good fight on behalf of farmers and wefeel that on this instance, the government is completely wrong andneeds to be challenged and held accountable," he said.

CAPALA BROTHERS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Plaintiff Fee Award in Wage Suit------------------------------------------------------------------Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports thatattorney fees in a wages-and-hours case that were double thedamages awarded to the plaintiffs were "amply supported" by thedefendants' litigation tactics, the U.S. Court of Appeals for theSecond Circuit ruled on July 29.

Ruling in Gortat v. Capala Bros., 14-3304-cv, the circuit affirmedmost of the fees awarded by Eastern District Court JudgeLeo Glasser after the plaintiffs prevailed at a two-week trial in2013.

The jury awarded the plaintiffs $293,000 and Judge Glasser, aftertrimming about $300,000 from the fees and costs requested by theplaintiffs' counsel, awarded attorney fees of $583,000 in August2014.

The litigation, described by Judge Glasser as an "unexceptionalFLSA case," generated more than 400 docket entries, "no less thanseven appeals taken by the defendants' counsel" and an $8,000sanction against the defendants' counsel for "ad hominem attacks."

The case was brought in 2007 by seven construction workers whoaccused their Brooklyn employer, Capala Brothers Inc., of notpaying them overtime at time and a half, as required by FLSA.The roofing company workers said they were paid between $15 and$20 an hour only for time at job sites, mostly in Manhattan. Buttime spent driving company trucks to and from the sites, whichpushed the weekly hours worked over 40, was not paid at theovertime rate.

"It was a garden-variety wages and hours case," said theplaintiffs' attorney, Robert Wisniewski. "They turned it into anuclear war."

In a summary order, the panel affirmed Judge Glasser's fee award,which had been based on the findings of Magistrate Judge StevenGold that the "delays in the case were due to defendants'combative and extraordinary conduct that raised many unnecessarydisputes regarding case management and discovery as revealed byeven a cursory review of the docket sheet."

Judge Glasser criticized the defendants' lawyer, Philip Orner,saying "his conduct throughout this litigation has beenprovocative." Judge Glasser added that Mr. Orner had made "anegregiously baseless charge that Judge Gold engaged in improper exparte conduct. The tenor of his objections was discourteous andundignified."

Judge Glasser dismissed several of the defendants' counterclaimsand the jury found the plaintiffs not liable on the remainder. Heset Wisniewski's hourly rate at $350, $100 less than requested.On appeal, the circuit rejected Mr. Orner's claim that Wisniewskiwas not entitled to compensation for unsuccessful motions he hadfiled. "There is no rule that plaintiffs need achieve totalvictory on every motion in pursuit of a successful claim in orderto be compensated for the full number of hours spent litigatingthat claim," the panel said in an unsigned ruling.

In a separate opinion, however, the circuit said there was notstatutory authority under FLSA to award $10,000 Mr. Wisniewski hadrequested to reimburse an accounting expert. But the panel saidthe claim might prevail under the fee-shifting provisions of theNew York Labor Law.

Judge Wisniewski said the defendants, two brothers who operatedthe 30-to-50-employee roofing company for 15 years prior to thecase, filed for bankruptcy protection in June.

"They have also transferred assets they owned to make themselvesjudgment-proof" Judge Wisniewski said. "So the saga continues."

Judge Wisniewski, who heads a two-attorney firm, said he had beenlitigating wages and hours cases since 1996. "I've never seenthis kind of scorched-earth litigation by a defendant before," hesaid.

Mr. Orner, a Flushing-based solo practitioner, said his clientswere "entitled to request a writ of certiorari from the U.S.Supreme Court," but had not yet decided whether to do so.

Mr. Orner, in a phone interview, ascribed the acrimony in the caseto Judge Wisniewski's refusal to settle. "We had very viablecounter-claims," he said. "Tortious interference, breach offiduciary duty. The plaintiffs tried to put my clients out ofbusiness."

CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL: Faces Data Breach Class Suit-----------------------------------------------------Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reported that Aclass action lawsuit has been filed against Charleston AreaMedical Center for a data breach that occurred nearly two yearsago.

Tiffany Mallion and Nickole Pullen were patients of CAMC andagreed with the hospital that as part of the hospital's services,the defendant would protect the plaintiffs' sensitive information,according to a complaint filed in Kanawha Circuit Court.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants stored their sensitiveinformation in an unprotected, unguarded, unsecured and/orotherwise unreasonably protected electronic and/or physicallocation and also failed to properly train and supervise employeesin regard to accessing the sensitive information.

CAMC did not adequately protect the plaintiffs' sensitiveinformation and their physician-patient confidential relationshiphas been breached, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim the defendant did not provide adequatesecurity measures to protect the sensitive information.

Between August 2013 and February 2014, employees of the defendantviewed and/or accessed certain information in the plaintiffs'medical records and victims were not notified of the data breachuntil nearly two years after the incident actually occurred,according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim they were notified in May of the data breach.

CAMC's failure to notify its patients of the data breach in areasonable time caused the plaintiffs to remain ignorant of thebreach and they were unable to take appropriate action to protectthemselves from identity theft and other harm resulting from thedata breach, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim by failing to fulfill their promise toprotect their sensitive information.The plaintiffs are seeking class certification and compensatorydamages with pre- and post-judgment interest. They are beingrepresented by Troy N. Giatras and Matthew Stonestreet of theGiatras Law Firm PLLC.

The case is assigned to Circuit Judge Carrie Webster.

CHRYSLER: Durango Rollover Document May Spur More Settlements-------------------------------------------------------------Greg Land, writing for Daily Report, reports that a plaintiffslawyer in a deal resolving a $12 million claim concerning therollover of a Dodge Durango said a key document unearthed justweeks before a trial was to begin could spur more settlements.

Jeff Harris -- jeff@hpllegal.com -- of Harris Penn Lowry said thedocument produced by defendant Chrysler Group "should have beenproduced in hundreds of other cases."

"That document refutes 20 years of roof-crush defense arguments,"added Harris, whose clients in the recently settled case were awoman and her husband, who was left quadriplegic after the Durangohe was in rolled over.

In their case, a DeKalb County State Court judge punished Chryslerfor belatedly supplying the document by forbidding it from arguingit was not on notice that the roof of a Durango could cave induring a rollover crash.

"This case is the tip of the iceberg" for internal standardsChrysler claimed never existed, not only for its vehicles' roof-strength, but also for seat belts, air bags and other auto safetyfeatures, Harris said.

Mr. Harris credited Chrysler's attorneys for immediatelydisclosing the document once it was found. "I'll give Diane Owensa lot of credit," said Mr. Harris. "She did what any ethicallawyer should do: produce it, knowing full well the judge waslikely to sanction them."

"But Chrysler knew damn well these documents were out there," hesaid.

The underlying case involved a 2011 accident when a 2003 DodgeDurango DN, in which Abu Kalan was a passenger, approached anintersection on Highway 316 in Barrow County. A pickup truckcoming the other way abruptly turned in front of the Dodge, whosedriver, Win Tun, jerked the steering wheel to avoid a collisionand lost control. The vehicle rolled over as many as four times.

Mr. Kalan suffered multiple spinal injuries when the Durango'sroof was crushed inward, according to plaintiffs' filings.Mr. Kalan, a refugee from Burma in his mid-40s, now requires aventilator and round-the-clock care, Mr. Harris said.

Mr. Evans died during the litigation, and his estate wassubstituted. Mr. Tun settled confidentially during thelitigation, but Mr. Harris said Mr. Evans' estate was kept in thecase to prevent Chrysler from shifting blame to a nonparty attrial.

During discovery, the plaintiffs' lawyers repeatedly demanded anydocuments related to internal testing and standards about the roofstructure and crush performance for the Durango.

According to defense filings, Chrysler produced "a myriad ofengineering drawings, graphics and standards" as well as a reportdemonstrating that the Durango "was tested to and exceeded therequirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Standard" roof-crushresistance.

"Chrysler Group also stated that it had no 'other internalrequirements related to the roof structure' or 'other documentsrelated to roof crush resistance'" regarding the vehicle, thedefense document said.

Among the discovery items Chrysler submitted was a documentreferring to a Durango that had passed a "Joint Specification forPassive Safety" (JSPS) test in 2003. According to a plaintiffs'filing, "this language certainly suggested that Chrysler performedinternal rollover testing and measured vehicles for compliance"with a set of internal standards.

Mr. Kalan's lawyers then filed a "narrow discovery requestspecifically based on this document," and were again assured thatall responsive documents had been produced.

Mr. Harris said there were several unsuccessful mediations toresolve the case. Mr. Kalan's medical bills have run to about $2million, he said, and a life-care plan estimated he would need $10million for necessary care over the course of his projected life.Trial was set for July 13 before Judge Janis Gordon.

On June 12, two days before the plaintiffs' lawyers were to deposekey Chrysler experts, the automaker's lawyers emailed a documentindicating that, as far back as 2000, Chrysler had implementedstandards for crush-testing its vehicles. They included "specificguidelines for 'protection zones for occupants and criterion forcrash test," according to a subsequent plaintiffs' motion callingfor sanctions.

"The defense in roof-crush cases is always that it's not the roofcollapsing down that causes the spinal cord injury, it's theperson being literally thrown into the roof," said Mr. Harris."These documents clearly show that, internally, that's not whatthey believe; that it's a defense strategy."

Mr. Kalan's sanctions motion argued that the document andaccompanying documents related "to the very issue at the heart ofthis case: occupant protection in a rollover wreck."

In a response filing and during a June 22 hearing, Chrysler'slawyers said the document had only been found in searching an"obsolete data collection." It was a vestige of the years afterDaimler-Benz merged with Chrysler in 1998, and it reflected theGerman automaker's efforts to initiate internal standards acrossthe Daimler-Chrysler product line, they said.

Further, they argued, the standards in question were applied onlyto vehicles made between 2004 and 2007, so they weren't relevantto Mr. Kalan's case, which involved a 2003 model.

The defense lawyers said they would agree to a continuance so theplaintiffs' lawyers could depose Chrysler's experts armed with thenew information. Mr. Kalan's attorneys countered that they hadspent more than a year preparing for trial with incompleteevidence, and that any delay would hurt their client, who was invery poor health.

On June 23 Judge Gordon declined to strike Chrysler's answer as apunishment. But she observed that the plaintiffs' "prejudice isundeniable. Plaintiffs could not depose its own or Chrysler'sexperts about the JSPS standards or conduct additional discovery."While there was some dispute as to whether the standards appliedto the 2003 Durango, she wrote, "even if they do not, plaintiffsare still prejudiced, by the failure to disclose standards andtesting which clearly took place before the manufacture of thisvehicle."

While there was no evidence of willful misrepresentation, Gordonwrote, Chrysler "recklessly failed to take all reasonable steps tocomply with its discovery obligations."

Judge Gordon ordered Chrysler to pay any plaintiffs' expensesstemming from the review of the new documents and any deposition-related costs. She also levied an "issue preclusion" sanction,decreeing that, at trial, "Chrysler will not be permitted tointroduce evidence or argue that it was not on notice that in arollover accident, the roof of a Dodge Durango DN could deform andcrush, causing a risk of serious injury," and that she would soinstruct the jury.

On July 10, three days before trial was to start, the casesettled. Mr. Harris said his clients were pleased with theoutcome."I'm certainly looking at other cases to determine whether these[documents] should have been produced," said Mr. Harris.

This recall involves NVIDIA SHIELD tablet computers with 8-inchtouch screens. Model numbers P1761, P1761W and P1761WX and serialnumbers 0410215901781 through 0425214604018 are included in thisrecall. NVIDIA and the model and serial numbers are etched on theleft side edge of the tablet computer. The SHIELD logo is on theback of the tablets.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidentsor injuries related to the use of these tablet computers inCanada.

NVIDIA has received one report in Canada of a battery overheating,and four reports of batteries overheating from consumers in theUnited States, including two reports of damage to flooring.

Approximately 5000 units of the recalled tablets were sold inCanada and 83,000 were distributed in the United States.

The recalled product was sold from July 2014 to May 2015 in Canadaand from July 2014 to July 2015 in the United States.

Manufactured in China

Distributor: NVIDIA Corporation Santa Clara California UNITED STATES

Distributor: D&H Canada ULC Harrisburg Pennsylvania UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the tablets and contactNVIDIA for instructions on receiving a replacement tablet.

Consumers may contact NVIDIA toll free at 1-888-943-4196 from 8:00a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PT, Monday through Friday or on the firm'swebsite and click on "NVIDIA Tablet Recall Program" at the bottomcenter of the page in green letters.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission'swebsite.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on ProductRecalls website . You can visit this site for more information onother international consumer product recalls.

EAST CHEMICAL: Judge Gives More Time On Chemical Leak Records-------------------------------------------------------------Ken Ward, writing for Gazette Mail, reported that a federal judgegave lawyers for Kanawha Valley residents, West Virginia AmericanWater Co. and Eastman Chemical Co. more time to reach agreementabout potentially unsealing documents in a class-action suit overthe January 2014 chemical spill that contaminated drinking watersupplies for hundreds of thousands of residents across the region.

At U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver's request, lawyers forthe parties agreed to meet again to discuss the records, which areunder seal in federal court in Charleston as the case proceedsthrough the legal system.

At issue are two sets of documents -- one filed by West VirginiaAmerican and one by the residents -- concerning a previous watercompany intake located upstream of the Freedom Industries leaksite, near the present site of Coonskin Park, and another set ofrecords filed by the plaintiffs about Eastman's actions regardingMCHM and its sale of the chemical to Freedom Industries.

Kevin Thompson, a lawyer for the residents, told the judge thatthe plaintiffs' position now is that they were overly cautious inseeking to file materials about the intake about MCHM under sealas part of separate motions about whether the case would bedismissed or if it could proceed under class-action status.

Thompson noted that there is a robust public discussion going onlocally about West Virginia American's quality of service thatincludes a specific debate about the water company's response tothe chemical spill. Thompson also noted that Congress continues todebate a potential rewrite of the federal Toxic Substances ControlAct, and that records about Eastman's handling of safety warningregarding MCHM would help inform lawmakers on that issue.

"As much as we can possibly reveal to the public should berevealed," Thompson told Copenhaver. "These are all documents thatare of vital importance to this public discussion."

Thomas Hurney, a lawyer for the water company, complained thatThompson was discussing in open court some of the very information-- location of equipment related to the now-abandoned Coonskinintake -- that the court currently has under seal, "obliterating"the effect of the confidentiality.

West Virginia American maintains that making public theinformation in question, including drawings and descriptions ofwater system equipment, would make that system vulnerable toterrorist attack. Officials from the state Bureau for PublicHealth and the Division of Homeland Security and EmergencyManagement submitted statements to the court supporting thegeneral argument that such records should be kept secret.

Water company lawyers indicated in a court filing on that WestVirginia American had agreed to make public several short sectionsof a legal brief describing the Coonskin intake, but continued toargue the rest of the information under seal should stay that way.

Copenhaver said that he may hold a hearing on the matter and if hedoes, that state officials and water company officials who supportsealing the material may need to appear for potential cross-examination about their statements.

Marc Williams, a lawyer for Eastman, said that the company isagreeable to most of the materials that it has soughtconfidentiality for being made public, including parts of adocument that the plaintiffs said in a legal brief shows that MCHMwas known by Eastman to be a danger to corrode Freedom's chemicalstorage tanks. Eastman made MCHM and sold it to Freedom, and theplaintiffs allege Eastman didn't provide Freedom with neededwarnings about the product.

Williams told the judge he would continue to work to finalize adeal with the plaintiffs about its documents.

Also on Monday, lawyers for Freedom Industries asked U.S.Bankruptcy Judge Ronald Pearson to approve its hiring of a newconsultant, CORE Environmental Services Inc., to help complete itscleanup of the Etowah Terminal site on the Elk River where theMCHM spill occurred. Earlier, lawyers for Freedom and the stateDepartment of Environmental Protection told Pearson that they hadbeen unable to reach agreement with the existing contractorARCADIS for continuing the project.

ARCADIS had complained that it was still not clear what amount ofsite testing the DEP would require, how well an interim cleanupplan proposed by Freedom - but not yet approved by the state -would work or what sort of "final remedy would be required bystate regulators. These unknowns, ARCADIS said, combined with "thefinite amount of funding and competing expenditures to collectstormwater runoff at the site, "create a substantial risk for thecontractor.

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT--------------------------------------------------------------Jacquelyn Stewart, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collectiveaction v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00921-MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla., July 27, 2015), is brought against theDefendant for failure to pay overtime compensation and otherrelief under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

EZCORP INC: Glancy Prongay Firm Files Securities Class Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces that it has filed a classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for the WesternDistrict of Texas on behalf of a class (the "Class") of purchasersof the securities of EZCORP, Inc. ("EZCORP" or the "Company")(Nasdaq: EZPW) between October 27, 2014 and July 16, 2015,inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have 60 days from thedate of this notice to file a motion to be appointed as leadplaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit.

EZCORP delivers cash solutions to customers across channels,products, services and markets. With approximately 1,400 locationsand branches, the Company offers customers multiple ways to accessinstant cash, including pawn loans and consumer loans in theUnited States, Mexico, Canada and the United Kingdom. The Companyoffers these products through four primary channels: in-store,online, at the worksite, and through a mobile platform.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendantsmade false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed todisclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made falseand/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, amongothers: (1) that the Company improperly recognized particularstructured assets sales; (2) that the Company improperlyclassified certain loans; (3) that, as a result, the Companyoverstated its gains on assets sales and accrued interest revenue;(4) that, as such, the Company's financial statements were notprepared in accordance with Generally Accepted AccountingPrinciples; (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal andfinancial controls; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing,defendants' statements were materially false and misleading at allrelevant times. Over the course of several disclosures, theCompany revealed its alleged accounting and securities fraud,causing the Company's share price to decline thereby harminginvestors.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move theCourt no later than 60 days from this notice to serve as leadplaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a memberof the Class you need not take any action at this time; you mayretain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain anabsent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about thisaction, or if you have any questions concerning this announcementor your rights or interests with respect to these matters, pleasecontact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at 310-201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website athttp://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of sharespurchased.

FOREST LABORATORIES: Court Refuses To Toll Statute of Limitations-----------------------------------------------------------------Gerald L. Maatman Jr. and Howard M. Wexler of Seyfarth Shaw LLP,in an article for Mondaq, said that in a decision worth readingfor all class action practitioners, especially those who faceEqual Pay Act ("EPA") issues, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York deniedequitable tolling of the statute of limitations period in a highprofile gender discrimination case. Judge Abrams' decision inBarrett, et al. v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., et al., 12-CV-5224(S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2015), serves a great primer as to thedifferences between calculating the limitation periods in TitleVII class actions as compared to EPA collective actions and thesignificant impact of these differences.

Background To The Case

Eleven current/former female employees brought individual andclass claims under the EPA and Title VII alleging disparate paybased on their gender in July of 2012. Plaintiffs' subsequentlyfiled a First and Second Amended Complaint, which Defendants movedto dismiss and the Court decided in August 2014.

In connection with a joint report in anticipation of the parties'Initial Conference, Plaintiffs, for the first time, raised theissue of equitable tolling for their EPA claims. Notably, at nopoint during the entirety of the action -- dating back to thefiling of the Complaint in July 2012 -- had the Court ordered orany party sought a stay of discovery. Eventually, Plaintiffsfiled a formal motion in January 2015 seeking to toll the statuteof limitations from April 2013 (the date Defendants filed theirmotion to dismiss) through the date conditional certification forthe collective action is granted.

The Court's Decision

The Court began with a primer concerning the difference betweencollective actions and class actions with respect to the accrualof claims. Relevant here, under the EPA (which incorporatesvarious provisions of the FLSA), the statute of limitations foreach plaintiff runs until the individual opts into the lawsuit byfiling written consent. Accordingly, such signed consent formsfrom class members do not relate back to the filing date of theComplaint as compared to Rule 23 class action claims, whereby "thecommencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute oflimitations as to all asserted members of the class who would havebeen parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a classaction." Equitable tolling creates an exception to the "potentialharshness" of the FLSA's limitation period by allowing courts toextend the limitations period to avoid "inequitablecircumstances," however, must be "cautious" in doing so...lestthey transform it into the Rule 23 scheme." A litigant seekingequitable tolling bears a "high burden" of establishing both: "(1)that [s]she has been pursuing [her] rights diligently; and (2)that some extraordinary circumstance stood in [her] way."

Applying this "high burden" to the facts before it, the Courtrefused to equitably toll the statute of limitations as"Plaintiffs cannot reasonably argue that they have been diligentin pursuing their rights or that some extraordinary circumstancestood in their way to be diligent." In so holding, the Court notedthat Plaintiffs' argument that discovery was "effectively stayed"based on the Defendants' motion to dismiss did not hold watersince the case was never stayed, nor did either party ask theCourt to do so? Accordingly, while there were delays in thebriefing process and in the Court deciding Defendants' motion,Plaintiffs "failed to explain how these delays erected any barrierto their seeking the discovery necessary to pursue conditionalcertification."

With respect to the second requirement for the Court to applyequitable tolling -- that some extraordinary circumstance stood intheir way -- the Court distinguished the cases relied upon byPlaintiffs since in those cases (unlike in this case) whereequitable tolling was ordered, there was "something -- whetherdiscovery disputes, a discovery stay, or the court's election tostay a certification motion pending a motion to dismiss" whichprevented plaintiffs from notifying potential collective actionmembers.

Based on Plaintiffs' failure to satisfy either required test forthe application of equitable tolling, the Court denied Plaintiffs'request since "to grant the exceptional remedy of equitabletolling for the pendency of a motion to dismiss when there wasnothing standing in the way of a plaintiff's pursuing collectivecertification would be tantamount to tolling the statute oflimitations for FLSA claims as a matter of course for allpotential plaintiffs whenever the first plaintiff files hercomplaint -- a result plainly contrary to the procedural rulesthat govern FLSA collective actions."

Implication for Employers

This decision serves as a great reminder of the differencesbetween class action certification and collective actioncertification and the real world impact of these differences as itpertains to the statute of limitations period. Given suchdifferences, employers should always be mindful of the limitationsperiod and that short of a court order otherwise, the limitationsperiod continues to run in collective actions under the EPA andFLSA. While equitable tolling is a powerful tool for Plaintiffs'counsel in collective actions, this decision highlights the highburden that plaintiffs' counsel must satisfy to warrant itsapplication in a particular case.

GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers Spar Over Scope of Valukas Deposition-------------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that General MotorsCo. and plaintiffs lawyers are fighting over the scope of theupcoming deposition of the lawyer whose report on the company'signition-switch defect blamed a handful of employees for thefiasco.

Jenner & Block chairman Anton Valukas issued the 315-page reportlast year explaining how GM failed for more than a decade toidentify a defect that causes the ignition switch to slip into theaccessory position, shutting down engines and disabling airbags.The defect prompted recalls of 2.6 million cars and trucksworldwide and has been linked to 124 deaths.

Valukas is scheduled to give a deposition on Sept. 24. His report,which included 350 witness interviews, largely absolved seniormanagement and GM's board of directors. Fifteen employees werefired over the ordeal.

Plaintiffs lawyers now want to question Valukas about the report'saccuracy. GM has insisted that those topics are privileged giventhat Valukas represents the automaker in criminal and regulatoryinvestigations.

"GM has affirmatively used this report all over the world as partof their transparency, and it's ironic that now they want to beopaque," said plaintiffs co-lead counsel Robert Hilliard, apartner at Hilliard Mu¤oz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas."They say we have to take the report on its face."

GM spokesman James Cain declined to comment. Mr. Valukas did notrespond to a request for comment.

In addition to the civil cases, the Justice Department is pursuingpotential criminal wrongdoing against GM, which also facesinvestigations from attorneys general and, in May, paid a $35million fine to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrationfor failing to report the defects in a timely manner.

The Valukas report is the latest discovery dispute betweenplaintiffs lawyers and GM, which is scheduled to go to trial overthe ignition switch on Jan. 11. Since May 7, more than 200 peoplehave been deposed, including current and former GM employees. Inaddition to Valukas, former GM general counsel Michael Millikinand GM chief executive officer Mary Barra have upcoming depositiondates scheduled.

On July 24, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman rejected GM's requestfor a blanket protective order over all pretrial discovery afterthe automaker alleged that Hilliard disclosed discovery materials,such as deposition names and dates, "to garner sensational presscoverage, rather than preparing for a trial on the merits."

Judge Furman found that "the public interest in this case weighsheavily against an order as broad as that" but he also cautionedlawyers to follow the state of New York's rules of professionalconduct pertaining to statements made outside of court.

Judge Furman also is weighing plaintiffs lawyers' request toaccess the privileged internal memos and notes of GM's lawyers atKing & Spalding, which represented the automaker in lawsuits filedover accidents linked to the defect.

As to the Valukas deposition, plaintiffs lawyers wrote in briefsfiled last month that they need at least seven hours to questionMr. Valukas about "multiple witnesses" in recent depositions whohave contradicted the report's facts or claimed that Mr. Valukasmisrepresented their statements to him. "This ranges fromwitnesses failing to recall whether they actually attended themeetings listed in the Valukas report, to witnesses outrightdisagreeing with Mr. Valukas's conclusions and characterization oftheir statements," according to one brief.

GM, in its own briefs, has maintained that plaintiffs lawyers aremerely attempting to skirt Furman's Jan. 15 order rejecting theirrequest for notes and memos associated with witness interviews inthe report. GM also said that a deposition of Mr. Valukas isunnecessary or, at the very least, should be limited to two hours.

Richard Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- a partner atKirkland & Ellis in Chicago, wrote in one brief that questioningMr. Valukas' "mental impressions" is privileged.

"Plaintiffs have yet to identify a single topic of examinationthat would be appropriate to cover with Mr. Valukas," he wrote.

HARBOR RAIL: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime-------------------------------------------------------------Christopher Wilson and Anthony Gonzalez, individually and onbehalf of the other members of the general public similarlysituated v. Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc., Case No.BC589348 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 27, 2015), is brought against theDefendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of theCalifornia Labor Code.

"It does cause complications to the case," said Ray Wagner, of theHalifax-based serious injury law firm Wagners.

But Horizon, which absorbed the former Miramichi Regional HealthAuthority years ago, is now the target, he said.

"The focus, really, is that they did nothing when they were awarethat there were serious issues in the pathology lab," he sa"Andthey didn't do what they were supposed to do to ensure they had acompetent pathologist working in that lab."

Menon died on April 21.

The class-action lawsuit against him and the Miramichi RegionalHealth Authority dates back to 2008.

It was filed after a public inquiry found Menon partially or fullymisdiagnosed thousands of pathology samples in New Brunswickbetween 1995 and 2007.

The certification order issued by the court defines the "class" inthe lawsuit as including:

About 100 former patients have signed up for the class action. JimWilson is among them.

Wilson was misdiagnosed for almost three years.

"Finally after the third set of biopsies, I was diagnosed withcancer. And by then, it was on both sides of my prostate," hesaid.

Wilson is cancer-free, but is pleased to see the lawsuit go ahead,even with Menon gone.

"Somebody has to be held accountable for what happened up there,"he said.

Horizon officials declined to comment.

The lawyer for Menon's estate was unavailable for an interview on.

Wagners was only advised on Menon's death on May 6, about one weekafter his passing, said Wagner.Schedule to deal with continuance matters

A case management conference was held on June 2 before JusticeJean-Paul Ouellette to set up a schedule to deal with variousmatters concerning the continuance of the class action

The schedule extends until March 31, 2016, with another casemanagement call slated for Aug. 19, 2015.

The Court of Appeal agreed in February 2014, to allow the class-action lawsuit against Menon and the Miramichi health authority togo ahead, making it the first class-action lawsuit to be certifiedin New Brunswick since legislation in 1982 was enacted to allowsuch lawsuits.

Menon worked as a pathologist at the Miramichi Regional HealthAuthority from 1995 until February 2007, when he was suspendedafter complaints about incomplete diagnoses and delayed labresults.

Former health minister Michael Murphy called a formal publicinquiry into the pathology work at the Miramichi hospital after anindependent audit of 227 cases of breast and prostate cancerbiopsies from 2004-05 found 18 per cent had incomplete results andthree per cent had been misdiagnosed.

Justice Paul Creaghan found that Menon should have been fired twoyears before he was suspended.

Creaghan's final report offered 52 recommendations to improvepathology services in the province.

HOWARD S. SCHNEIDER: Judge Weighs in on Abuse Suit--------------------------------------------------Vic Micolucci, writing for News4Jax, reported that the caseagainst a former pediatric dentist accused of abusing childrenmoved out of the streets and before a judge.

The attorney for Howard S. Schneider asked the judge to dismiss apotential class action lawsuit against him and to issue sanctionsagainst the attorney who filed it. But after hearing from bothsides, Judge Kevin Blazs allowed the suit to continue if someinflammatory language is removed.

Dozens of parents and former patients began coming forward inApril with allegations of abuse and neglect from Schneider, whofor decades ran a dental clinic on University Boulevard North.They claimed he intentionally abused his patients and didunnecessary work in the name of profit.

The state of Florida opened an investigation into his Medicaidbilling that amounted to more than $5 million over the last fiveyears.

About about a month of daily protests outside his practice, anonline petition that drew more than 78,000 supporters, and local,state and national news converge, Schneider relinquished hislicense and closed his practice for good.

"Anybody who's injured by a dentist or physician has a right tobring a claim, but there has to be due process it is filed,"Ramsey sa"There are procedures are in place. People can't bedefaming other people improperly and our courts. It is notpermitted, and that's what my primary argument was."

Among the claims in the lawsuit are that Schneider is "apathological sadist" with a "psycho-sexual disorder."

"I have never in 28 years seeing a complaint with these types ofpersonal attacks," Ramsey sa"Horrible, vicious comments that arebeing made about this dentist who is entitled to his day in courtif, in fact, a valid lawsuit is brought against him."

"We will see the things that I have alleged in the complaint willcome out to be true and that this case will proceed," Sarris said.

While Sarris stands behind the lawsuit was filed, he agreed tochange the complaint at the judge's request.

"All you have to do is alleged the necessary facts withoutinflammatory language, and then you don't have these problems,"Blazs said.

Blazs told both attorneys they had 10 days to submit writtenopinions on why the lawsuit should or shouldn't be dismissed.

IDAHO: Inmate Can Move Forward with Heart Attack Suit-----------------------------------------------------Rebecca Boone, writing for San Francisco Gate, reported that afederal judge says an Idaho inmate can move forward with hislawsuit against the state even though he has already won a six-figure settlement from the state's prison health care provider.William Bown, an inmate at the Idaho Maximum Security Institutionsouth of Boise, filed the lawsuit against Idaho prison officialsand the prison health care contractor Corizon in 2012 after he hada heart attack.

Bown contended that the prison guards and the medical careproviders failed to realize the seriousness of his condition andsent him to an observation cell instead of calling for emergencycare. Bown says that as a result, his heart attack went untreatedfor roughly eight hours despite his screams for help, leaving himwith severe and irreversible heart damage.

Bown named several Idaho prison officials, Corizon Inc. andseveral Corizon employees as defendants in the case. Corizonagreed to pay Bown more than $670,000 to settle its portion of thecase.

In a statement, Corizon Health officials declined to comment onthe settlement because of a confidentiality agreement. But thecompany said its top priority was providing skilled andcompassionate health care to patients.The inmate asked to modify his lawsuit to remove Corizon and itsemployees from the defendant list, leaving just the stateofficials.

The state of Idaho, which has denied any liability in the case,then asked the federal judge to toss out the case entirely.Idaho's attorneys said that the settlement with Corizon renderedthe remaining lawsuit moot.

But in a sharply worded order issued late, U.S. District Judge B.Lynn Winmill said Bown's lawsuit against the state would stand.Just because Bown agreed to release the Corizon defendants fromthe lawsuit doesn't mean the Idaho Department of Correctionsdefendants are automatically released as well, the judge said.

"This conclusion is so patently clear, that the Defendants'opposition to the Motion to amend borders on being frivolous,"Winmill wrote.

In his lawsuit, Bown contends that the state should have bettertrained Department of Corrections employees to recognize the signsand symptoms of a heart attack, and that the state failed toensure that its medical care provider had adequate policies inplace to treat medical emergencies.

The state should have known that Corizon wasn't providing adequatecare, Bown says in the lawsuit, because Idaho officials had finedCorizon and CMS -- a company that formerly held the state prisonhealth care contract, and that Corizon later merged with --hundreds of thousands of dollars for not meeting the terms of thecontract. Bown also cited a class-action lawsuit over medical careat a neighboring prison that has spanned more than three decades.

Bown says the Department of Corrections had long abandoned itsobligation to preserve the physical safety and constitutionalrights of its inmates, and that the state "allowed and evenfostered systemic conditions evidencing a deliberate indifferenceto the serious medical needs of those individuals in theircustody, including Mr. Bown."

Bown is asking for damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

INNOVATE LOGISTICS: Removed "Torres" Suit to New Jersey Court-------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit styled Jorge Torres and Luis Rivera, forthemselves and on behalf of a class of similarly situated workersv. Innovate Logistics, LLC and Matthew Kim, Case No. MID-L-00573-15, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey MiddlesexCounty, New Jersey to the U.S. District Court District of NewJersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-05770-WHW-CLW to the proceeding.

This recall involves John Deere lawn tractors with model numbersD110, D125, D130, D140, D155, D160 and D170 with serial numbersbeginning with 1GXD. A complete list of serial numbers included inthis recall can be found on the firm's website. The model numbercan be found on the bottom left and right of the hood in yellow.The serial number is located on the left side of tractor, underthe fender, above the left rear tire.

The brake arm on the lawn tractor can fail, posing a crash hazardthat could result in serious injury or death.

Neither Health Canada nor Deere & Company has received any reportsof consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these lawntractors.

Approximately 370 of the recalled lawn tractors were sold inCanada at John Deere dealers, Lowe's and The Home Depot stores.Approximately 1,700 products were distributed in the UnitedStates.

The recalled products were sold from May 2015 to August 2015 inCanada and the United States.

Manufactured in the United States

Manufacturer: Deere & Company Moline Illinois UNITED STATES

Distributor: John Deere Canada ULC Grimsby Ontario CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lawn tractorsand contact the nearest John Deere dealer to make arrangements fora free repair.

For more information, consumers may contact Deere & Company at 1-800-537-8233 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET, Monday throughFriday and between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. ET Saturday, or visitthe firm's website and select Product Recall Information on thedrop-down menu under Services & Support.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission'swebsite.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on ProductRecalls website. You can visit this site for more information onother international consumer product recalls.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASSIS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAINONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING ATTHIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period madefalse and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:(1) defendants' projections for sales were unrealistic andunattainable given the continuing consumer confusion over KeurigGreen Mountain's Keurig 2.0 brewing system; (2) the retaildistribution of Keurig Green Mountain's new cold brewing system,Keurig Kold, would be delayed; and (3) as a result, defendants'statements about Keurig Green Mountain's business, operations, andprospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonablebasis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuitclaims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish toserve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later thanAugust 18, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party actingon behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Ifyou wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website athttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-616.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact PhillipKim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com orkchan@rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,concentrating its practice in securities class actions andshareholder derivative litigation.

SUMMARY NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS OF PROPOSED $2.3 MILLIONSETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANT DEREK PALASCHUK, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESSHEARING, AND MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

To: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquiredLongtop Financial Technologies, Ltd. ("Longtop") AmericanDepositary Shares ("ADSs") during the period from February 21,2008 through May 17, 2011, inclusive, and were damaged thereby(the "Class"). Certain Persons are excluded from the definitionof the Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation andAgreement of Settlement dated June 18, 2015 (the "Stipulation").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTEDBY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of New York, that a settlement of theabove-captioned litigation ("Action") has been proposed withdefendant Derek Palaschuk ("Palaschuk") for $2.3 million in cash("Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable ShiraA. Scheindlin in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United StatesCourthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15C, New York, NY 10007-1312 at 2:30 p.m., on October 13, 2015 to determine whether: (1)the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,reasonable and adequate; (2) the Action should be dismissed withprejudice against Palaschuk, and the releases specified anddescribed in the Stipulation should be granted; (3) the proposedPlan of Allocation should be approved; (4) Lead Counsel'sapplication for reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and(5) Lead Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs andexpenses (including lost wages) in connection with theirrepresentation of the Class should be approved.

The proposed Settlement follows the November 2014 trial againstPalaschuk, whereby a jury found Palaschuk liable for violatingSection 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the"Exchange Act") between February 10, 2010 and May 17, 2011.Further, as required under the Exchange Act, the jury apportionedliability for total damages determined at trial amongst the threenamed defendants in the Action as follows: Longtop (49%), WaiChau Lin a/k/a Lian Weizhou ("Lin") (50%) and Palaschuk (1%). Inaddition to the jury verdict against Palaschuk, the Courtpreviously entered a default judgment against Longtop and Lin, forviolating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act betweenFebruary 21, 2008 and May 17, 2011. Pursuant to the defaultjudgment, Longtop and Lin are jointly and severally liable to LeadPlaintiffs and the Class for damages totaling $882,300,000 plus 9%interest on such amount from February 21, 2008, through the dateof payment. This amount is the maximum amount of damagesavailable to the Class. Lead Plaintiffs' efforts to collect thisjudgment remain ongoing; however, given the complexities of theinternational laws implicated, Longtop's corporate structure andits potential lack of financial resources, the likelihood of LeadPlaintiffs collecting this judgment or any portion thereof isuncertain.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILLBE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHAREIN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. A detailed Notice to Class Members ofProposed $2.3 Million Settlement with Defendant Derek Palaschuk,Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Reimbursement ofLitigation Expense ("Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release Form("Claim Form") are currently being mailed to Class Membersexplaining Class Members' rights in connection with the Settlementand the process for submitting a claim. If you have not receiveda Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents,and other information about the Settlement and the Action, atwww.longtopclassaction.com or by calling (855) 382-6454.

In order to be eligible to share in the Settlement, you mustsubmit a valid Claim Form postmarked no later than November 10,2015, to Longtop Financial Technologies Securities Litigation, c/oGCG, P.O. Box 10149, Dublin, OH 43017-3149. Please Note: Asdiscussed in the previously disseminated Notice of Pendency ofClass Action dated July 29, 2014 ("Class Notice"), at trial, LeadPlaintiffs pursued claims based on Palaschuk's allegedmisrepresentations during the period February 10, 2010 through May17, 2011 (the "Trial Class Period"). Accordingly, only thoseClass Members who purchased or otherwise acquired Longtop ADSduring the Trial Class Period and submit valid Claim Forms will bepotentially eligible to share in the Settlement. If you are aClass Member and do not submit a valid Claim Form, you will not beeligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of theSettlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgment ororders entered by the Court in this Action.

If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Classin connection with the Class Notice and you wish to remainexcluded from the Class, no further action is required. If youpreviously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class inconnection with the Class Notice and you want to opt-back into theClass and be potentially eligible to receive a payment from theSettlement, you must submit a request to opt-back into the Classin writing such that it is received no later than September 22,2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Classin connection with the Class Notice and do not opt-back into theClass in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice,you will not be bound by any judgment or orders entered by theCourt in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in thenet proceeds of the Settlement.

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to theSettlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the requests by LeadCounsel and Lead Plaintiffs for reimbursement of expenses. Anyobjections must be filed with the Court and delivered to LeadCounsel and counsel for the Settling Defendant such that they arereceived no later than September 22, 2015, in accordance with theinstructions set forth in the Notice.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, maybe made to Lead Counsel: Gregory M. Castaldo and Kimberly A.Justice of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, 280 King of PrussiaRoad, Radnor, PA 19087, (610) 667-7706, info@ktmc.com. Furtherinformation may also be obtained by directing your inquiry inwriting to the Claims Administrator, GCG, at the address and phonenumber listed above.

LOUISIANA: Retirement System Sued Over Reimbursement Failure------------------------------------------------------------Kyle Barnett, writing for Louisiana Record, reported that a formerbus driver for the Jefferson Parish School Board claims that thestate school retirement system has failed to reimburse him forfunds that were improperly paid into the system.

Joyle Pertuit filed suit against The Louisiana School EmployeesRetirement System and The Jefferson Parish School Board in the24th Judicial District Court on May 29.

Pertuit claims he was employed by the Jefferson Parish SchoolBoard a bus driver for over 30 years during which time he maderequired contributions to the Louisiana School EmployeesRetirement System program. The plaintiff alleges that near the endof his employment he was making a base salary of $29,800 plus$7,050 in operation expenses as well as $1.37 per mile driven.

Pertuit contends he was notified in 2007 that The Louisiana SchoolEmployees Retirement System had been improperly taking funds forhis retirement from only his base pay when it should have beenrequiring him to submit part of his operational pay in whichJefferson Parish School Board included his per mile payments.However, on Jan. 15, 2008 the plaintiff asserts he was informedThe Louisiana School Employees Retirement System had incorrectlywithheld funds from his operational expenses and he should havereceived a refund.

During the time his income was improperly reported to TheLouisiana School Employees Retirement System Pertuit claims hereceived $12,179.71 in operational and mileage reimbursement partof which was wrongfully taken from his pay to go towards hisretirement fund. The plaintiff alleges that despite makingnumerous demands The Jefferson Parish School Board has failed toreimburse him for the funds improperly paid to The LouisianaSchool Employees Retirement System. In addition, Pertuit contendsthe overcharges were spread amongst other drivers employed by theJefferson Parish School Board who were similarly affected as aclass.

The defendant is accused of breach of fiduciary duty, negligenceand breach of contract.

An unspecified amount in damages is sought for declaratoryjudgment and injunctive relief.

Pertuit is represented by James F. Willeford of New Orleans-basedWilleford & Toledano.

This recall involves the My Snuggly Ellie Activity Toy. The toy isa plush brown elephant with white crinkle ears. The green hangingloop on top of its head can attach to a stroller or crib. On thestomach, there is a mini mirror while a teether and wooden ringhang below its body. Item number 12520 can be found on the smallwhite tag sewn into the bottom of the toy.

The wooden ring can break into small pieces, posing a chokinghazard to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor Manhattan Group has received any reportsof consumer incidents or injuries in Canada.

Manhattan Group has received one report of the wooden ringbreaking in Norway. No injuries were reported. The company has notreceived any reports of injuries in the United States.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help themkeep children safe when they play with toys, see the General ToySafety Tips.

Approximately 100 units of the recalled toys were distributed inCanada, and approximately 2,700 units were distributed in theUnited States at specialty toy and baby stores, and online atwww.manhattantoy.com.

The recalled toys were distributed from February 2014 to May 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Manhattan Group LLC Minneapolis Minnesota UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away fromchildren and return the toy where it was purchased for a fullrefund.

For more information, consumers may contact Manhattan Group toll-free at 1-800-541-1345 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT, Mondaythrough Friday. Consumers may also visit the firm's website andclick on "Recalls" for additional information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission'swebsite.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on ProductRecalls website. You can visit this site for more information onother international consumer product recalls.

MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Sequential Merger Plan---------------------------------------------------------------Karen Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al., CaseNo. 11340-VCN (Del. Ch., July 27, 2015), is brought on behalf ofthe public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.,to enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell theCompany to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawedprocess and for an inadequate price.

Headquartered in New York, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.is a globally recognized lifestyle company committed to providingconsumers with inspiring content and well-designed, high-qualityproducts.

Sequential Brands is a Delaware corporation with its headquarterslocated at 5 Bryant Park, 30th Floor, New York, New York 10018.Sequential Brands owns, promotes, markets, and licenses aportfolio of consumer brands in the fashion, active, and lifestylecategories.

MERRILL LYNCH: Sued in Florida Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties--------------------------------------------------------------Benjamin Fernandez, Gustavo Martinez, Oscar Luzuriaga, andDaniel Araujo as trustees of and on behalf of the LAAD RetirementPlan, and as trustees of and on behalf of the LAAD CorporationS.A. Money Purchase Retirement Plan, and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & SmithIncorporated, Case No. 1:15-cv-22782-MGC (S.D. Fla., July 27,2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of fiduciaryduties owed to the Class under Employee Retirement Income SecurityAct, specifically by failing to provide the information necessaryfor mutual fund companies to give the Plans the Class A mutualfund share sales charge waiver discounts that the Plans wereentitled to receive.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in Manhattan said it wasdesirable to let the roughly 25,200 customers sue as a grouprather than require a "plethora" of individual lawsuits, a processhe said would be "wholly inefficient and wasteful."

The lawsuit seeks at least $820 million, comprising at least $350million of prejudgment interest, and $470 million to repayadvances from MF Global brokerage trustee James Giddens, which hecould not recover in the bankruptcy proceedings, according toMerrill Davidoff, a lawyer for the customers.

MF Global filed for Chapter 11 protection on Oct. 31, 2011, in acollapse that left $1.6 billion missing from customer accounts.The customers recouped that sum in exchange for assigning some oftheir claims to Giddens.

"We were expecting a favorable decision," Davidoff, a partner atBerger & Montague, said in an interview. "They all had their moneyraided and stolen and dipped into illegally, and still haveimportant claims that need to be pursued."

Corzine is also a former New Jersey governor and senator, and co-chairman at Goldman Sachs.

His lawyer Jonathan Streeter, a partner at the Dechert law firm,did not immediately respond to requests for comment. MF Global isnow defunct.

MICROSOFT: May Face Class Suit Over Xbox 360 Defective Discs------------------------------------------------------------Wesley Copeland, writing for IGN News, reported that Microsoft maybe on the verge of a class-action lawsuit following a recurringclaim that an Xbox 360 defect gouges discs.

As Arstechnica reports, a decision was made by the 9th US CircuitCourt of Appeals on that says Microsoft should either facelitigation regarding the claims or face a Supreme Court showdown.

Throughout the lifespan of the Xbox 360, Microsoft maintained thatscratched discs were the result of consumer misuse, most of whichwere caused by customers moving the console with a disc in thetray. That said, if it was a Microsoft-published game, customersdid have the option of getting the disc replaced for free.

One of the arguments put forth draws on the case of Kenneth Gableand Brian Wolin vs Land Rover. Both Gable and Wolin purchased LandRover's LR3 vehicles, which allegedly suffered from an alignmentgeometry defect that causes the tires to wear out prematurely.

In the case of Gable/Wolin, the class-action was eventuallydropped. As for the scratched disc lawsuit, the plan was toenforce the Gable/Wolin ruling, thus ending the class-action.Judge Martinez, however, doesn't think the two cases are similarenough make the same ruling.

"Judge Martinez concluded that the presumption had not beenrebutted because the Gable/Wolin Land Rover litigation wasdistinguishable from the scratched disc litigation," reads thecourt document.

The class-action against Microsoft aims to establish whether discscratches were made due to consumer misuse, or because the Xbox360 suffered a design flaw.

"[. . . ] although individual factors may affect the timing andextent of the disc scratching, they do not affect whether theXboxes were sold with a defective disc system. Plaintiffs contendthat (1) whether the Xbox is defectively designed and (2) whethersuch design defect breaches an express or an implied warranty areboth issues capable of common proof."

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Seau Family Seeks Trial in Concussions Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Noreen O'Donnell, writing for NBC News, reported that three yearsafter legendary San Diego Chargers linebacker Junior Seau shothimself in the chest with a .357 Magnum revolver, his relativescontinue to battle the National Football League over what they saywas a decades-long deception about concussions and brain injuries.

His former wife, Gina, and his four children opted out of asettlement of a federal class-action lawsuit in January becausethey want more information to emerge about the debilitatingeffects of head injuries, according to their lawyer, Steven M.Strauss, a partner with the Cooley law firm in San Diego.

The Seaus are trying to get their case returned to a Californiastate court for a trial, Strauss said.

Seau is to be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Aug.8.

Before his death in May 2012 at age 43, he had become erratic andshort-tempered, according to legal papers. He was depressed, drankheavily and gambled millions compulsively. But his family was asstunned by his suicide as everyone else and wanted answers, GinaSeau told The Associated Press.

Throughout his long career -- he played 20 seasons with the NFL,with the Miami Dolphins and the New England Patriots in additionto the Chargers -- Seau had had concussions, but he always keptplaying, she said.

"That didn't stop him," she sa"I don't know what football playerhasn't. It's not ballet. It's part of the game."

When doctors at the National Institutes of Health examined tissuesamples from his brain, they discovered that he was suffering fromthe degenerative brain disease, chronic traumatic encephalopathy,found in athletes with a history of brain trauma.

The challenge for the Seaus will be to show that his injuries werecaused by football he played in the NFL and not before, whether inhigh school or at the University of Southern California, saidScott Rosner, a sports business professor at the Wharton School atthe University of Pennsylvania. Trying to draw that link will berisky, he said.

"It might be there but my sense is that there would be a prettystrong case to be presented to a jury that maybe it was anotherinjury that caused this, maybe it was before he got to the NFL,"Rosner said.

The January following his suicide, Seau's family sued the NFL andthe helmet maker Riddell in California Superior Court in SanDiego. The lawsuit alleged that Seau had killed himself because ofhis injuries, and that the NFL had long been aware that headinjuries from violent collisions on the field could have long-term, debilitating effects on players. It ignored the link,falsified research and tried to repress the findings of otherstudies, the lawsuit said.

The family -- including Seau's four children, Tyler, Sydney, Jakeand Hunter -- became part of the federal class-action lawsuitfiled in June 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania. The complaint also alleged that the NFLfraudulently concealed the link between football-related headimpacts and long-term neurological injuries from its players --a charge the NFL denied.

The NFL had argued that safety and health rules were covered bythe league's collective bargaining agreement with its players. Italso said that the lawsuits lacked any proof that it concealed therisk of head trauma.

Brought by more than 5,000 former players or their families, thelawsuit was settled in April. The settlement provides payments ofup to $5 million to players with such neurological conditions asdementia and Alzheimer's and Parkinson diseases, plus money formedical research and monitoring. It covers about 21,000 former NFLplayers.

Since the settlement was approved, about 90 former players haveappealed.

The Seau family is among about 200 who opted out of thesettlement. The Seaus in a "60 Minutes Sports" segment objectedthat the NFL took no responsibility for policies that led to thebrain injuries.

"Since this litigation started, there hasn't been one documentproduced, there hasn't been one deposition taken," Strauss said ina statement to ESPN. "It seems very clearly designed to nip thisin the bud and not have the truth come out, and that's notacceptable to the Seau family, and it's not acceptable to Junior'slegacy."

A lawyer who negotiated the settlement on behalf of the players,Chris Seeger, a partner at Seeger Weiss, has said in a statementthat if Strauss thought the $4 million the Seaus were eligible forwas insufficient he could forfeit the money and face thesignificant risks associated with continuing litigation.

Rosner said Seau was in a category different from many otherplayers.

"His earning capacity was greater, his earning capacity after thegame was different because of his Hall of Fame status so you couldsee monetarily why they would go down this road," he said.

Seau's attorneys also will have to address an outstanding questionof the care that the NFL owed to its players at a time when theywere represented by a union, said Marc Edelman, an associateprofessor of law at the Zicklin School of Business of BaruchCollege, City University of New York.

And the attorneys will have to show that Seau's injuries led tohis death, he said.

The lawsuit claims that NMPF's "Cooperatives Working Together"program repeatedly paid farmers to send their herds to slaughterbetween 2003 and 2010, thereby reducing milk output and inflatingprices for dairy products.

The plaintiffs characterize the program as an unlawfully anti-competitive "conspiracy" and have requested class action statusthat would allow other direct dairy purchasers to join in thelawsuit to seek compensation.

NMPF has been battling similar allegations for the past fouryears, but that class action case was brought on behalf ofconsumers rather than retailers.

Chris Galen, senior vice president of communications for NMPF,said the group could not yet comment on the latest complaint.

"We just learned of this litigation and we're still consultingwith our attorneys," he said.

According to NMPF, the herd retirements were protected by theCapper-Volstead Act, which provides farm cooperatives with someexemptions from antitrust liability.

Since the original antitrust lawsuit was filed in 2011, NMPF hascontinued defending the program despite suffering two significantlegal setbacks.

The organization asked U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White todismiss the case on the grounds that USDA and not the federalcourt has jurisdiction over the controversy.

In 2012, White rejected that argument as well as the claim thatplaintiffs were barred from filing the lawsuit by the statute oflimitations.

The judge dealt NMPF another blow by certifying the consumer caseas a class action -- a step that often exposes defendants togreater financial losses and thus creates pressure to settle.

A jury trial in the consumer case is scheduled for February 2016.

It's likely that NMPF will again ask the judge to throw out thecase before it goes to trial, based on the theory the cooperativesare protected by Capper-Volstead, said Peter Carstensen, a lawprofessor specializing in agricultural antitrust at the Universityof Wisconsin Law School.

If the judge agrees that NMPF is shielded by that law, it wouldeffectively end the case and foreclose the plaintiffs from filinga similar lawsuit, he said.

"You won't be able to come back and have another crack at it,"Carstensen said.

As for the new retailer lawsuit, it could be an attempt by otherattorneys to join the dispute in the hope of eventually winning ashare of the fees, he said.

The latest complaint could also be strategically aimed atexpanding the class of plaintiffs, Carstensen sa"It's possiblethis is a way of adding another component to the litigation."

Aside from milk, similar lawsuits have targeted volume-controlsystems for potatoes, eggs and mushrooms in recent years, he said.

Given the legal uncertainty about such programs and theirvulnerability to litigation, other farm sectors will likely thinktwice about trying to limit production, Carstensen sa"My advicewould be, 'Don't do it.'"

In a July 30 order, U.S. District Chief Judge Jerome Simandle ofthe District of New Jersey indicated that there have beenpromising signs since he first issued stays of the litigationearlier this year in order to encourage settlement: More than 350cases have been resolved in recent months.

About 150 others are amidst or awaiting settlement negotiations,Judge Simandle said. But for the roughly 350 cases that have been"silent," meaning no settlement materials have been submitted,Simandle directed attorneys to indicate their intentions.

"The court is concerned that plaintiffs in this latter group of'silent' cases are neither litigating their claims nor pursuingthe settlement of their claims despite the passage of more than120 days since the stay was entered," the judge wrote."Obviously, by not submitting the materials necessary for thesettlement process, while also not requesting relief from the stay(which was the procedure offered in each of the stay orders) sucha case becomes dormant due to nonprosecution."

Judge Simandle, at the urging of the district court's HurricaneSandy Litigation Committee, issued "one last" stay, of 30 days,during which plaintiffs must either participate in the expeditedsettlement process or seek to move forward with litigation.

Judge Simandle said litigants who do neither will have their casesdismissed, albeit without prejudice "only for good cause shown."

The case is In re Hurricane Sandy WYO Carrier Flood Litigation."WYO" refers to "write your own" -- meaning National FloodInsurance Program policies that are issued and serviced by privateinsurers but underwritten by the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency. FEMA -- after announcing earlier this year that it wouldreview all Sandy-related claims, whether litigated or not -- hasbeen negotiating settlements in the Sandy flood litigation inconnection with both WYO policies and policies that originatedwith FEMA.

Though there is Sandy flood litigation in other jurisdictions,primarily in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Simandle isoverseeing only cases filed by New Jersey property owners,according to Christopher Gerold -- cgerold@csglaw.com -- ofChiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi in West Orange, counsel to about140 New Jersey plaintiffs.

"To FEMA's credit . . . the cases are moving . . . . It's beenworking out for the homeowners; it's been working out for thecourt."

"None of my cases are dormant, although some of them do appear onthat list" because Judge Simandle hasn't yet been notified ofsettlement talks, Mr. Gerold said, adding that he'll do so soon inkeeping with the order. "I can tell you there have been someproblems in New Jersey where some cases have been taken and notlitigated."

Charles Mathis IV -- cmathis@merlinlawgroup.com -- of the MerlinLaw Group in Red Bank, which also represents a share of theplaintiffs, painted a somewhat different picture.

"I'm glad to see that they are starting to resolve-there's been alittle bit of delay," he said. "Things have been sort of sittingfor four months with little or no movement."

Negotiations with FEMA have been smooth, but "getting paid is anissue," Mr. Mathis added. "Even when we do have a check, the nextfight is with the banks, getting the banks to [process] thechecks."

FEMA spokesman Rafael Lemaitre said the agency is "going to doeverything we can to make sure policyholders get every dollar theydeserve."

"The settlement program is one component of that," Mr. Lemaitresaid.

FEMA, aside from deploying its own lawyers, has been representedby the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey,whose spokesman didn't respond to an email seeking comment on theprogression of the litigation.

NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Discrimination Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on July 31 thatthere could be circumstances where a putative class action suitalleging employment discrimination could rely on statistics aloneto show discriminatory intent. But the statistics that New YorkCity sanitation employees cited on racial make-up in the top ranksdid not convince the panel that there was discriminatory intent inthe department's promotional practices.

As a result, the panel on July 31 upheld a lower court's dismissalof the employees' case.

Southern District Judge Jed Rakoff, sitting by designation, saidthe case presented a matter of first impression for the circuit"in the context of a putative class action alleging employmentdiscrimination under [42 U.S.C.] [Section]1981 and/or the EqualProtection Clause."

As some of the circuit's employment discrimination cases "havehinted, in certain circumstances . . . statistics alone may besufficient," Judge Rakoff said. But to make the showing onstatistics alone, he said, the figures "must not only not only bestatistically significant in the mathematical sense, but they mustalso be of a level that makes other plausible non-discriminatoryexplanations very unlikely."

Second Circuit Judges Guido Calabresi and Peter Hall joinedJudge Rakoff in Burgis v. New York City Department of Sanitation,14-1640.

The plaintiffs contended the Department of Sanitation's promotionpractices made for a predominantly white supervisory staff thatdid not reflect the composition of its workforce.

Within the department, employees were first promoted fromsanitation worker to supervisor. The next promotional step wasbecoming general superintendent. The general superintendentposition has four levels, and the fourth level is the mostsuperior.

Promotions for general superintendent levels two through four arebased on recommendations.

All the plaintiffs, black and Hispanic men and women, werepromoted to supervisor, but have not gotten higher than generalsuperintendent level one.

They sued the department in 2013.

In their papers, they cited publicly available fiscal year 2011racial makeup statistics for the percentages of whites, blacks andHispanics filling the various ranks.

The numbers showed 56 percent of sanitation workers were white,23.5 percent were black and 18 percent were Hispanic.

However, 81 percent of supervisors were white, 11 percent wereblack and 10 percent were Hispanic.

Eighty-one percent of level one general superintendents werewhite, 13 percent were black and 9 percent were Hispanic.

For general superintendent levels two and three, 91 percent werewhite. Four percent were black and 3 percent were Hispanic.At the fourth level, 80 percent were white while blacks andHispanics equally constituted the remaining 20 percent.

In March 2014, Southern District Judge Thomas Griesa dismissed thecase before it could get to discovery. He said the plaintiffs'Equal Protection and Sec. 1981 claims did not sufficiently allegediscriminatory intent, and dismissed the Title VII disparateimpact claim for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a state action allegingdisparate impact in violation of the New York City Human RightsLaw. The matter is pending before Acting Manhattan Supreme CourtJustice Margaret Pui Yee Chan.

The appeal in the federal case was argued March 5.

In his decision, Judge Rakoff said even apart from failing to showdiscriminatory intent, the plaintiffs failed to give "meaningfulspecifics" on claimed qualification differences between the whiteswho landed promotions and seven of the plaintiffs who werepurportedly passed over.

The plaintiffs said the statistics alone could be enough towarrant a "plausible inference of discriminatory intent" if theyshowed a pattern or practice, which could not be explained exceptby intentional discrimination.

Judge Rakoff said the proffered information fell short.

"Among other shortcomings, the statistics provided by plaintiffsshow only the raw percentages of white, black, and Hispanicindividuals at each employment level, without providing any detailas to the number of individuals at each level, the qualificationsof individuals in the applicant pool and of those hired for eachposition, or the number of openings at each level," he said.

The judge said claims of discrimination also were undercut by thefact that each plaintiff had been promoted to a supervisorposition.

Judge Rakoff acknowledged there was an increased disparity betweenthe racial and nation origin makeup of the level one generalsuperintendents and level two and three general superintendents.But he said by level four, the composition returned "toessentially the same percentage as at level 1."

Apart from pressing the state case, Mr. Schwartz said he plannedto ask the Second Circuit for an en banc review.

He said the July 31 ruling held him "to a standard of proof on amotion to dismiss that should have only been applied on summaryjudgment or at trial. The level of statistical proof that thecourt was demanding at the pleading stage was unprecedented."

Mr. Schwartz said, "there is no question in our mind that there isgross discrimination in promotions" at the Sanitation Department.The plaintiffs were also represented by Tracey Kiernan, anassociate at the firm.

Nicholas Paolucci, a Law Department spokesman, said "this decisionmakes clear that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient toestablish a claim that [the Sanitation Department] discriminatedwhen promoting staff."

NISSAN: Court Approves Deal in Leaf Misleading Advertising Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Stephen Edelstein, writing for Green Car Reports, reported thatNissan appears to have reached a final settlement with plaintiffsin a class-action lawsuit over Nissan Leaf electric-car batteriesthat now goes back almost three years.

The suit was filed in California in 2012 on behalf of all Leafowners in that state and in Arizona.

Nissan was accused of not accurately describing the Leaf's real-world range in advertising.

After an initial settlement was rejected, Nissan will now have tocompensate owners and potentially replace more battery packs,according to InsideEVs.

The suit accused Nissan of misleading customers about the Leaf'sreal-world range.

It claimed figures used in advertising for the 2011 and 2012 Leafwere based on battery packs charged to levels beyond what Nissanitself recommended to customers.

A previous settlement with a reported value of $38 million wasrejected by Alex Kozinski, 2011 Leaf owner and Chief Judge of theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kozinski reportedly referred to the arrangement as a sweetheartdeal for the class council that negotiated it, with less realbenefit for the bulk of Leaf owners affected by the issue.

Those objections caused the legal process to stall for roughly twoyears.

Now it appears all parties have agreed on a final settlement.

Under the new terms, Nissan will no longer have the option torepair a battery pack that shows less than nine "bars" ofindicated capacity on the dashboard gauge.

Instead, it will have to replace those packs with updated versionsidentical to those used in the 2015 Leaf, which use a newer andmore heat-tolerant cell chemistry.

Nissan will also provide 90 days of free access to DC fast-charging through its EZ Charge card program.

Already offered to buyers of new Leafs, the EZ Charge cardprovides access to stations on the NRG eVgo, Aerovironment, andCar Charging Group networks.

The card is only available in certain markets, though. Classmembers outside of those markets--or those not interested in thecharging program--can get a $50 check instead.

PENNSYLVANIA: Four-Time Killer's Death Penalty Delayed------------------------------------------------------Rudy Miller, writing for Lehigh Valley, reported that aNorthampton County judge is due to hear arguments on whether tocontinue to postpone the execution of quadruple murderer MichaelBallard.

Ballard is part of a class-action lawsuit seeking to throw out thedeath penalty against 184 Pennsylvania death row inmates.

Philadelphia attorney David Rudovsky argues in the suit that thedeath penalty can't be carried out in Pennsylvania because thedrugs to be administered under state Department of Correctionspolicy fail to meet specifications outlined in the state's deathpenalty law.

Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli, however,filed court papers noting a similar argument made in Oklahoma wasdismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Morganelli noted in a supplemental brief on that being named inthe class-action suit does not automatically guarantee a stay ofyour execution.

Morganelli said he will make further arguments at the hearingbefore County Judge Emil Giordano at 10 a.m.. He'll be opposed byBallard attorneys James Connell and Michael Corriere.

Connell and Corriere filed papers arguing in part that the deathpenalty should be thrown out in Pennsylvania because theprocedures for administering lethal injections weren't open topublic debate. They were formulated by a closed group ofcorrections officials, they argue.

The registered nurses who administer the lethal drugs do sowithout the direction of a doctor and without a prescription forthe person to be executed, both in violation of state law, theclass action suit says.

Ballard, 42, had recently been released from state prison for anAllentown murder when he killed his ex-girlfriend, her father, hergrandfather and a neighbor in Northampton in 2010. He wassentenced to death in 2011.

PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Aug. 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline------------------------------------------------------Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors that asecurities class action has been filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Central District of California on behalf ofthose who purchased shares of Puma Biotechnology, Inc. ("Puma" orthe "Company") during the period between July 23, 2014 and May 13,2015 inclusive. (The "Class Period").

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendantsmade false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclosematerial adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period,Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failedto disclose that: (i) the Company's NDA filing would be for apositive early stage breast cancer indication, instead of thepreviously announced metastatic breast cancer; (ii) Puma wouldneed to submit additional safety data from preclinicalcarcinogenicity studies with its NDA filing, which Puma did nothave; (iii) the additional required studies would necessarily pushthe timeline for filing the NDA into the first quarter of 2016;(iv) the Company overstated results from its Phase III ExteNETTrial; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked areasonable basis for their positive statements about the Companyand its outlook, including in its financial statements and aboutthe ongoing ExteNET trial.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wishto review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or haveany questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or hisInvestor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via emailinfo@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged toinclude their mailing address and telephone number. If yousuffered a loss in Puma you have until August 3, 2015 to requestthat the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability toshare in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a leadplaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigationboutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit oflitigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition torepresenting institutions and other investor plaintiffs in classaction security litigation, the firm's expertise includes generalcorporate and commercial litigation, as well as securitiesarbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do notguarantee similar outcomes.

RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Kadin" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger-------------------------------------------------------------Ted Kadin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situatedv. Receptos, Inc., et al., Case No. 11337-CB (Del. Ch., July 27,2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders ofReceptos, Inc., to enjoin the agreement to sell the Company toCelgene Corporation, for an unfair price and inadequateconsideration.

Receptos, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developingtherapeutic candidates for the treatment of immune and metabolicdiseases.

Celgene Corporation is an integrated global biopharmaceuticalcompany engaged primarily in the discovery, development, andcommercialization of therapies for cancer and inflammatorydiseases.

ROWAN COUNTY, KY: Judge Hears Testimony in Licensing Suit---------------------------------------------------------Lana Bellamy, writing for The Independent, reported that duringtestimony on the witness stand, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis toldthe court she has been considering how her office would handlemarriage licenses since she took her oath in January.

Rowan County Judge-Executive Walter "Doc" Blevins, Jr., saidduring his testimony before U.S. District Judge David Bunning thathe and Davis had "talked for a while" about her potential conflictwith a U.S. Supreme Court decision that would uphold theconstitutionality of gay marriage.

"She's very religious and she said she would not be issuinglicenses to anyone because she didn't want to only do for onegroup," Blevins said, adding Davis later voiced concern of thenarrow 5-4 margin of the Supreme Court decision and possibilitythat the decision could be changed within 30 days.

Blevins said, despite his personal religious objection, he wouldissue a license based on the law.

Bunning did not make a decision on whether or not to make Davis'office issue licenses to the four couples named in a federalclass-action lawsuit. He said a decision would come as early asthe week of Aug. 11.

Davis and Rowan County government are being sued by the AmericanCivil Liberties Union of Kentucky on behalf of four Rowan couples-- two same-sex, two opposite-sex -- that were denied licenseseither by her or by her county clerk office.

Davis said she has ordered her office to stop issuing any marriagelicenses because she did not want to violate her religious beliefsof discriminating against same-sex couples and does not want to beseen as approving of their marriages.

Davis said during the hearing she had only spoken directly withone couple named in the suit, which was same-sex couple JodyFernandez and Kevin Holloway.

Davis said she and other county clerks wrote to as many statelegislators as they could find addresses for in January, askingfor a bill to be drafted in order to protect clerks from issuinglicenses that conflicted with their religious convictions.

"It was not a spur-of-the-moment thing for me," she said in court."I prayed and fasted weekly before the (Supreme Court) decision."

Davis' attorney, Roger Gannam, submitted a copy of the letterwritten on behalf of 57 county clerks, addressed to Gov. SteveBeshear, into evidence during the hearing.

The letter said the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sexmarriage in all 50 states caused a "dramatic and sudden change" inclerks offices, but Davis said clerks had met in January to form acommittee focused on the outcomes of the federal decision handeddown in late June.

Davis said six full-time clerks and another employee operating onalternative hours work in her office.

She testified that four of these clerks told her they hadreligious objections to issuing marriage licenses to same-sexcouples, one person was "ambiguous" with their views, and one waswilling to issue licenses.

Bunning asked Davis if she would fire, or otherwise discipline, aclerk who issued a license. She said the license would still haveher name on it. The judge repeated his question and then sheanswered, "They would not be able to without my authority."

Bunning repeated his question to Davis a third time, but she thenrefused to answer because she said the question was based offspeculation and she was unsure of how to appropriately respond.

Davis later clarified she did not have any intention to disciplinethis employee based on his or her beliefs and described the deputyclerk as "loyal" and "very dedicated" to the job.

When Davis was questioned about her oath to uphold the U.S. andKentucky Constitutions, she defended her decision by saying it wascovered federally under the First Amendment's freedom of religion.

"The Kentucky Constitution, so far, hasn't been re-written. Thattakes an act of legislation," she said, and therefore, shebelieves she is still upholding state law.

When ACLU Cooperating Attorney Dan Canon asked Davis if she made aconscious decision not to follow the U.S. Constitution in notissuing licenses, she paused, then said no.

Near the end of the hearing, Canon asked Davis who she believedhad the "final say" in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

To this, Casey County Clerk Casey Davis, who has also halted theissuance of marriage licenses in the county he serves, whisperedfrom his front row seat in the gallery, "God."

"I don't know," Davis answered.

Rowan County gay couple David V. Moore and David Ermold, who weredenied a license in her office earlier, has also sued Davis. Canonsaid the couple has not become part of the class-action suit atthis time.

Casey Davis said he has not been sued over his office's non-issuance of licenses and marriage license requests have only beenmade to his office over the phone.

SANDHURST-WICKHAM: Class Action Has First Court Hearing-------------------------------------------------------Jason Spits, writing for Money Management, reported that a classaction worth up to $32 million being brought against SandhurstTrustees, which acted as trustee for failed property lenderWickham Securities, will proceed with the first court date setfor.

The action, which will have its first hearing in the Federal Courtof Australia on July 27, will include around 150 investors withthe lead plantiff -- Graeme and Marion Clark -- seeking to recover$220,000 in lost funds.

However the head of Shine Lawyers Professional Negligence team JanSaddler said the total claims against Sandhurst would be muchhigher with Wickham liquidators PBB Advisory estimating totallosses suffered by investors to be between $28 million and $32million.

Saddler said the 150 investors had signed funding agreements withmore investors expressing interest now that a court date has beenconfirmed.

In a 70 page statement of claim Shine stated it would seek to showthat Sandhurst failed to act as a prudent trustee and exercisedappropriate diligence regarding its oversight of Wickham'sborrowing, lending and business management.

The class action will take place after Shine was able to secureaccess to 39 different categories of documents which they claimedwere necessary for the action to proceed.

The documents -- in paper and electronic form -- detailedSandhurst's role as trustee of Wickham Securities and includetrustee reports, financial statements, trust deeds andcommunication with the liquidators which eventually wrapped up theWickham business.Sandhurst was ordered by the court in March of to hand over thedocuments which were necessary for Shine and the investors toascertain whether they could obtain relief through the courts.

Saddler said Shine and the investors expected a favourable hearingand that Sandhurst was financially capable of meeting the claimand it had given no reason to Shine or the investors no reason tobelieve the claim would not be met in the event of successfulcase.

SMKH LLC: Removes "Sobrino" Class Suit to S.D. Florida------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit entitled Augustin Sobrino and othersimilarly situated service advisors v. SMKH, LLC d/b/a South MiamiKia, Case No. 15-011148-CA-01, was removed from the 11th JudicialCircuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida to the U.S. District CourtSouthern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22781-CMA to the proceeding.

SOLAZYME INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit--------------------------------------------------------The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, remindspurchasers of Solazyme, Inc. securities from February 27, 2014through November 5, 2014, both dates inclusive (the "ClassPeriod") including its March 27, 2014 follow-on public stockofferings ("the Offerings") of the important August 24, 2015 leadplaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks torecover damages for Solazyme investors under the federalsecurities laws.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASSIS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAINONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING ATTHIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period, Solazymemisstated and/or failed or disclose unfavorable news about its newrenewable oils production facility in Moema, Brazil. Solazymeinitially failed to report that the Moema Facility sufferedconstruction delays stemming from the inadequate availability ofelectricity and steam utilities. As a result, the lawsuit claimsthat Solazyme was prevented from increasing output to itspreviously projected levels. When the true details entered themarket, the complaint asserts that Solazyme's share price declinedand investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish toserve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later thanAugust 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party actingon behalf of other class members directing the litigation. If youwish to join the litigation, go to the firm's websitehttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-650.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact PhillipKim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com orkchan@rosenlegal.com.

US HEALTHWORKS: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims---------------------------------------------------------------John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situatedv. U.S. HealthWorks Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-05689 (C.D. Cal., July 27, 2015), is brought against theDefendants for failure to disclose its intent to use and obtainconsumer-background reports as a factor in their decision to hire,promote, reassign, or terminate employees.

U.S. HealthWorks Inc. is a California corporation that operateshealth care clinics throughout the United States.

VALENCIA HOLDING: Arbitration Agreement Enforceable, Court Rules----------------------------------------------------------------Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that ruling in aclosely watched case, the California Supreme Court made clear onAug. 3 that consumers trying to escape arbitration agreements mustdo more than show the contract favored the other side.

A six-justice majority reversed the Second District Court ofAppeal, which ruled in 2011 that an arbitration agreement in asales contract for a used Mercedes-Benz could not be enforcedbecause it favored the car dealer. However, the court stoppedshort of adopting a new, possibly more rigorous, standard forproving unconscionability.

Writing for the majority in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding, JusticeGoodwin Liu said not all one-sided contract provisions can bestruck down.

"Commerce depends on the enforceability, in most instances, of aduly executed written contract," he wrote. "A party cannot avoida contractual obligation merely by complaining that the deal, inretrospect, was unfair or a bad bargain."

Justice Ming Chin issued a dissenting and concurring opinion,agreeing with the majority's conclusion but challenging itsreasoning.

Justice Liu's opinion follows a period of tension between the pro-arbitration U.S. Supreme Court and the more plaintiff-friendlyCalifornia Supreme Court. The Aug. 3 ruling could signal the twocourts are falling more in sync, said Rex Heinke --rheinke@akingump.com -- co-head of the Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &Feld Supreme Court and appellate practice.

"I think there has been a shift," he said, "and the CaliforniaSupreme Court is coming more in line with the U.S. Supreme Court."The decision is a win for Greines, Martin, Stein & Richlandpartner Robert Olson, who argued for Southern California cardealership Valencia Holding.

"I don't think it's going to make it easier for a company touphold a truly oppressive arbitration provision," Mr. Olson said."But I think it's going to make it easier to uphold mostarbitration provisions, which do have a modicum of fairness."

In oral arguments, Mr. Rosner claimed his client wasn't given achance to read the sale agreement and wasn't alerted to thearbitration agreement on the back page. But the justices wrotethat "Valencia was under no obligation to highlight thearbitration clause of its contract, nor was it required tospecifically call that clause to Sanchez's attention."

Mr. Rosner also argued the agreement was unfairly one-sidedbecause it stipulated an arbitration award only could be appealedby either party if the award was $0 or more than $100,000, or ifit included injunctive relief. The justices were not persuaded.Appealing a $0 award would favor the buyer just as much asappealing a $100,000 award would favor the seller, they wrote.

The justices agreed the ability to appeal injunctive relief has agreater chance of benefiting the dealership, but they found thatone-sided aspect to be merited.

"We find significant Valencia's concern that the scope of aninjunction can extend well beyond the transaction at issue and cancompel a car seller to change its business practices," Justice Liuwrote.

Lastly, the justices addressed Mr. Rosner's argument that theagreement would force the buyer to front all costs for an appeal.

"Sanchez does not claim, and no evidence in the record suggests,that the cost of appellate arbitration filing fees wereunaffordable for him," Justice Liu wrote, pointing out that thecar at issue in this case, a Mercedes-Benz, is a high-end luxuryitem. Liu conceded his decision might have been different if thearbitration agreement instead was part of an employment contractsigned by a worker in need of a job.

Plaintiff Gil Sanchez filed a putative class action againstValencia Holding alleging the dealership made falserepresentations about the condition of its cars and chargedcustomers unauthorized fees. Valencia moved to compelarbitration, but the Los Angeles County Superior Court tossed thedealership's arbitration agreement because it contained a classwaiver, which was prohibited by California law. Shortly after,the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling in Concepcion, found the FederalArbitration Act requires enforcement of class waivers. On appeal,the Second District panel rejected the arbitration agreement onseparate grounds, ruling it was unfairly one-sided in favor ofValencia.

During oral arguments in May, the justices had discussed whetherthey needed to clarify the standard for determiningunconscionability. In the past the high court has used a varietyof terms to describe such agreements: "unreasonably favorable" toone party, "unfairly one-sided," "overly harsh," "undulyoppressive," or "so one-sided as to shock the conscience."

But the justices ultimately decided there was no need to come upwith one overarching term, concluding that the prior expressions"all mean the same thing."

Justice Liu rejected Judge Chin's view that "shock the conscience"sets a higher standard than any other language the high court hasused.

"Adopting [Chin's] approach, however, would call into question anumber of cases where we have found substantive unconscionabilityunder other formulations," Justice Liu wrote. "We see no reasonto disturb our precedents."

Mr. Heinke said the court may only have temporarily dodged abullet by declining to pick one universal phrase.

"What I think is going to be difficult going forward is theredoesn't seem to be any clear rule as to what is or is notsubstantively unconscionable," he said. "It's very much aprovision-by-provision review of the arbitration agreement."Contact the reporter at mkendall@alm.com.

On certain vehicles, the steering wheel clock spring could becomecontaminated with long hair or long fibers which may cause adisplacement of the internal guide loops. When the guide loops aredragged out of position, they may apply tension to the internalflat cable and cause it to tear. Should the cable tear, theelectrical connection to the driver's front airbag may be lost,causing the airbag monitoring indicator light to illuminate.Failure of the driver's airbag to deploy during a crash (wheredeployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personalinjury to the seat occupant. Correction: To be determined.

On certain vehicles, the steering wheel clock spring could becomecontaminated with long hair or long fibers which may cause adisplacement of the internal guide loops. When the guide loops aredragged out of position, they may apply tension to the internalflat cable and cause it to tear. Should the cable tear, theelectrical connection to the driver's front airbag may be lost,causing the airbag monitoring indicator light to illuminate.Failure of the driver's airbag to deploy during a crash (wheredeployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personalinjury to the seat occupant. Correction: To be determined.

WASHINGTON: Tardy Toll Payers Given Break From Late Penalties-------------------------------------------------------------Mike Lindblom, writing for The Seattle Times, reported that thestate will offer one-time forgiveness to drivers who rack up civilpenalties of $40 for failing to pay toll bills on time.

After three years of enforcing overdue fees of $40 per unpaidtoll, the state is offering drivers a second chance when theydon't pay their Highway 520 or Tacoma Narrows Bridge tolls ontime.

Thousands of people have faced civil penalties since the currentelectronic toll system began at the end of 2011, and the stateestimates there are 300,000 vehicles right now whose drivers oweunpaid penalties and tolls.

But most people who've already paid their penalty won't getrefunds, the state says.

Under the new law, which took effect Monday, drivers can get theircivil penalties waived one time if they arrange to pay off theirtolls. Or they can establish a Good to Go debit account thatelectronically collects the toll using a vehicle-mounted chip, sothere's no need to mail the driver a bill.

It's not really an amnesty. Unlike a temporary reprieve, the newpolicy is permanent, for the sake of newcomers who drive through atoll area and miss a bill, said Patty Rubstello, toll-operationsdirector for the Washington State Department of Transportation.

"That first time, we want to help them, educate them, collect thetoll, and hopefully that puts them in a better place next timethey use our facilities," she said.

Another reason is the Interstate 405 expansion, to start late,where one- or two-person vehicles can pay a toll to use theuncrowded high-occupancy lanes, saving minutes between Lynnwoodand Bellevue. That means thousands more drivers will face tollbills. Without some leniency, many drivers would wind up withcivil penalties as they encounter the new toll lanes and rules.

Civil penalties do not apply on Highway 167, where solo driverscan pay to use the HOV lanes.

Under the new law, the first time a vehicle owner owes penalties,a simple phone call or visit within 20 days should erase them --but the toll portion must be paid before the state will renewlicense tabs.

The second time, WSDOT will require the motorist to establish anelectronic Good to Go account, or else the civil penalties wouldbe retained.

If there's a third time, the motorist would have to see a toll-court judge to ask for the penalties to be waived.

The new law was praised by attorney Catherine Clark, who filed aclass-action lawsuit on behalf of penalized drivers who aredemanding refunds. About 100 people have joined the suit, butClark said the real purpose was to change the toll regime onbehalf of the state's motorists.

"I couldn't be more pleased that people are being relieved of asituation that has caused financial terror for so many people,"Clark said.

The new law doesn't apply to vehicle owners who paid off theirbills or lost their challenges in toll court before Feb. 19, saidtoll spokeswoman Patty Michaud. However, there is a provision thatallows a judge to review a past case.

It's fairly easy to get in trouble for failure to pay toll billswithin 80 days.

Car owners might move without updating a mailing address in thestate licensing database, so bills don't arrive. They mightmisunderstand or ignore the bills. They might fail to stock enoughmoney in a Good to Go account. Or they might sell a car and bebilled for trips the new owner made.

"We had a customer who had her mail stolen, for months," Rubstellosa"We were able to help her and get her on her way."

The new law is designed to prevent what happened to ScottTourville, of Redmond, two years ago.

He said he changed debit cards but forgot to file the numbers withGood to Go, and a few dozen 520 trips mushroomed into $2,500 intolls and penalties.

He said police pulled him over for expired tabs, after he lost intoll court and the state put a hold on his car-license renewal.

Tourville said he finally sold personal items to pay off the bill,and still crosses the bridge four days a week.

"I think it's a corrupt system. They're just trying to get moneyout of people. But I've paid off my account. It's behind me. Now Iwatch it like a hawk," he said.

"I'd be really happy for people to not have to go through what Iwent through."

The EPA's decision not to order Whirlpool to compensate buyers ofthe mislabeled washing machines does not rise to the level of afederal law that can be given pre-emptive effect, U.S. DistrictJudge Kevin McNulty of the District of New Jersey ruled in Dzielakv. Whirlpool.

While the judge denied motions to dismiss state-law consumer fraudand breach of warranty claims, he granted dismissal of a claimunder the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act because the act doesnot apply to warranties that are governed by other federal laws.He also granted dismissal of a claim for unjust enrichment againstWhirlpool, since the plaintiffs bought their appliances at variousretailers that are co-defendants in the case, rather than from themanufacturer.

The U.S. Department of Energy, which runs the Energy Star programin conjunction with the EPA, determined in May 2012 that threemodels of Maytag washers, made by Whirlpool, did not comply withthe program's efficiency standards. The plaintiffs claim the EPAallowed Whirlpool to stop making the mislabeled washing machines,but people who bought those models, who paid more based on theEnergy Star status, were not notified of their noncompliance, thesuit claims.

The plaintiffs sued Whirlpool as well as five retailers sellingthe appliances-Lowe's, The Home Depot, Sears Holdings Corp., Fry'sElectronics and Appliance Recycling Centers of America.

In rejecting the defendants' pre-emption claim, Judge McNulty saidthe case does not "involve the sort of formalized agency actionthat is capable of pre-empting a state law."

Federal agencies can take actions that pre-empt state law, but notevery agency action holds such weight, Judge McNulty said.Actions by federal agencies can pre-empt state law, particularlywhere formal notice-and-comment rulemaking is involved, or wherean adjudication creates binding rules, Judge McNulty said. Butless formal actions require case-by-case analysis, examiningwhether the agency's action "attained a level of fairness anddeliberation that suggests Congress intended it to constitute apronouncement of federal law." On the other hand, he said,informal agency proceedings should not have pre-emptive effectwhere they lack "fairness and deliberation."

Whirlpool argued that the lack of a penalty represented the EPA'sbalancing of three objectives: keeping participation in the EnergyStar program inexpensive, protecting integrity of the Energy Starlogo, and treating parties fairly. But Judge McNulty said therewas no evidence to support the claim that the EPA's inactionreflects such an analysis. The agency is not required to weighsuch factors and render a decision, and it can do nothing withouttriggering an obligation to explain itself, he said.

"That is a far cry from the kind of pervasive regulatory regimethat would displace state law," the judge said.

Judge McNulty dismissed the plaintiffs' Magnuson-Moss warrantycount based on case law finding that statute is pre-empted by theFederal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in suits claiming thatconsumer products were sold with misleading labels. While theFDCA is mandatory and participating in the Energy Star program isvoluntary, the specific criteria for a product to earn the EnergyStar logo can be considered a warranty and therefore the contentsof that warranty are governed by federal law, Judge McNulty said.

Magnuson-Moss claims in the case were dismissed without prejudiceto permit the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint addressingthe defects in the plaintiffs' theory of liability, Judge McNultysaid.

David Kott -- dkott@mccarter.com -- of McCarter & English inNewark, representing the defendants, did not return a call aboutthe case. Yitzchak Kopel -- ykopel@bursor.com -- of Bursor &Fisher in New York and Lindsey Taylor of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,Olstein, Brody & Agnello in Roseland, representing the plaintiffs,also did not return calls.

YINGLI GREEN: Goldberg Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Goldberg Law PC announces that a class action lawsuit has beenfiled in the United States District Court for the Central Districtof California against Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd. (NYSE:YGE) ("Yingli" or the "Company"), for alleged violations of thefederal securities laws. Investors who purchased shares betweenMarch 18, 2014 and May 15, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"),have until July 27, 2015 to serve as lead plaintiff in the classaction.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the ClassPeriod, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall,of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina DelRey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights withoutcost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website athttp://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and untilcertification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. Ifyou choose to take no action, you can remain an absent classmember.

Yingli is a supplier of vertically integrated photovoltaic (PV)modules based in the People's Republic of China. According to thecomplaint, the Company made false and/or misleading statements andfailed to disclose: (1) that the Company was inappropriatelyrecognizing revenue; (2) that the Company had no reasonableprospects to collect on certain accounts receivable based onhistorical customer conduct; (3) that the Company was no longerable to borrow from commercial banks to fund its operations; (4)that Yingli's inability to raise additional capital or borrowfunds from commercial banks threatened the Company's ability tocontinue as a going concern; and, (5) that, as a result of theforegoing, Defendants' statements about Yingli's business,operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lackeda reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, the stock droppedharming investors.

If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in thiscase, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401,or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us at info@goldberglawpc.com.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world andspecializes in securities class actions and shareholder rightslitigation.

CFPB Complaint Statistics show 298 FCRA class action lawsuits werefiled between June 1, 2015 and June 30, 2015 while 235 FCRA classaction lawsuits were filed between May 1, 2015 and May 31, 2015, arise of 26.8 percent rise from May 2015 to June 2015.

CFPB Complaint Statistics reveal that 178 FCRA class actionlawsuits were filed between June 1, 2014 and June 30, 2014 while298 FCRA class action lawsuits were filed between June 1, 2015 andJune 30, 2015, a rise of 67.4 percent rise from June 2014 to June2015.

Year to Date (YTD), FCRA class action lawsuits were up 22.7percent with 1514 filed from January 2015 to June 2015 and 1234filed from January 2014 to June 2014. The complete CFPB ComplaintStatistics are at http://dev.webrecon.com/debt-collection-litigation-cfpb-complaint-statistics-june-2015/

* U.S. Securities Class Actions Against Chinese Companies Rise--------------------------------------------------------------Anna Zhang and Zoe Ferguson, writing for The Asian Lawyer, reportthat Chinese companies were the biggest foreign target of U.S.securities class actions during the first half of 2015, a newstudy finds.

A report released on July 30 by litigation research groupCornerstone Research and Stanford Law School Securities ClassAction Clearinghouse found that just over half of the 20securities litigation cases filed in the first two quarters thisyear were against Asian companies, almost all of them Chinese.

The increase in filings against Asian companies reflects a generaltrend of more U.S. securities class actions being filed againstforeign issuers. In the first half of 2015, cases against foreignissuers accounts for 24 percent of 85 filings, up from 20 percentin 2014. This year foreign issuers, which account for about 18percent of U.S.-listed companies, were more likely to be sued inshareholder class actions than U.S.-based issuers, the reportfound.

This spate of cases is not the first time Chinese issuers havefaced a wave of shareholder litigation in the U.S. AsCornerstone's report points out, securities class actions againstChinese companies that went public via reverse merger -- alsoknown as backdoor listing, allowing them to bypass a normaldisclosure and auditing process -- peaked at 31 in 2011. Thatyear, a reverse-merger Toronto-listed Chinese forestry company,Sino Forest Corp., was accused by short seller Muddy WatersResearch of inflating assets and earnings. The allegations led toSino Forest's bankruptcy in 2012 and triggered a flurry ofgovernment investigations and shareholder lawsuits against U.S.-listed Chinese companies.

Since then, filings against Chinese reverse-merger companies havedecreased, dropping to three last year, as more Chinese issuers --mostly internet and technology companies -- have chosen to gothrough a conventional initial public offering to list on U.S.exchanges. Indeed, the recent increase in class actions againstChinese issuers follows a surge of U.S. IPOs by Chinese companiesin the past two years. In the 18 months starting June 2013, atotal of 20 Chinese companies IPOed on either the New York StockExchange or Nasdaq. That compares to 16 in the previous 30months.

Lawyers differentiate the current Chinese targets of shareholderlitigation from the reverse takeover issuers, noting thatcompanies such as Alibaba have been sued because their prices fellbelow investors' high expectations, not because of questionablebusiness operations.

"This could be viewed as an indication that Chinese companies haveentered a more 'mature' phase of development where they areessentially no different than other listed companies," saidBrian Burke -- brian.burke@shearman.com -- a Hong Kong-baseddisputes partner at Shearman & Sterling.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.